I completely agree with your concern about this problem. Personally, I think the bulk of the issue in the U.S. stems from two factors. The first is money in politics. This certainly applies to both sides of the aisle, but the extent to which the Republican party is beholden to the fossil fuel industry (and several others) makes this a pretty lopsided problem. But what’s new? Corporations and the rich have dominated American politics since our inception, and particularly since industrialization. We’ve never dealt properly with that problem, and it continues to haunt us.
The other issue is America’s isolation, and relative independence when it comes to the fluctuations of, and competition for, commodities that impact the rest of the world (not to mention the relative safety being so far from other countries brings). This makes it easy for us to ignore what’s happening elsewhere as “not our problem,” while simultaneously pursuing policies or consumer desires that exacerbate the issue, for example driving huge, fuel inefficient cars.
What’s to be done? I hate to say it, but I think changing hearts and minds is ultimately a losing strategy, particularly when it comes to climate change. The problem is too big and the timeline too short for that approach to do anything meaningful quickly enough to prevent some sort of disaster. In the end, in this country, it comes down to gaining power, and holding onto it long enough to effect meaningful change. The Democrats have been woeful in this regard. Their messaging and organization is simply not good enough to keep the attention of easily distractable voters who despite all their lofty ideals still tend to vote with their pocketbooks on issues that are easier to grasp than the threat of climate change (or general environment degradation).
What may change that is some kind of disaster. Not just worse storms or hotter summers, but a real disaster like marine collapse, or warming to a point that places start to be unlivable. Then people will see it. Of course, by then, it’s too late from the perspective of people like you and me, but it’s all too common to see the traffic light put in after the fatal accident, not before. Look how the E.U. has responded to the Ukraine invasion. Without that, they'd still be sucking at the teat of Russian oil.
The only other option I see is to go full-on Greta Thunberg, and get millions to join in, and keep pounding on the issue. As we know from recent experience, that repetition of message has the ability to woo weak minds to your cause. In this case, the weak minds will support something good for the planet instead of a dogma of hate. Of course, that means pretty much dedicating your life to this issue, largely to the expense of other activities. But it’s going to take something like that, a leader like that, and a movement like that in this country to wake people up before it’s too late.
Prognosis is not good from my perspective, but I guess you never know.
I liked your point about isolationism of the US. I forget that sometimes, but think you are right in that many Americans really are quite US-centric in their thinking. Similarly, I blame the US' lack of long term thinking on the immaturity of the nation. The US is quite young yet and doesn't seem to have the morality of its older European nations. But undoubtedly the US' size, geography (spanning between two big oceans and hence having only two land neighbors) as well as our abundant resources make us far more self-sufficient - which certainly has plays a role in our responses.
And then there is what to do about climate change. Of course we need nearly immediate action and changing minds isn't going to be the way to reduce our emissions quickly. But if we only concentrate on legislation or regulations then we will continue to be divided by fear and anger and struggle to meet future challenges as well as increasing the hatred of those who don't understand the changes. While a much longer term goal, trying to find unity with our fellow humans is - in my opinion - hugely important. And, you never know, may sway a few votes.
But yes - the next few election cycles are CRITICAL.
As for going full on Greta, more power to anyone who does that. But as you say most of us won't because we have other concerns and desires. I believe you and I quite differ on this next point, Bill. I do think that way each of us chose to confront climate change and the biodiversity crisis is of significance. What do we teach others, what signals do we send, with our actions and our words. We will never know the ramifications of our actions, the ripples of a kind act, or the saving of injured turtle. Most of us are not likely to save a forest or a river, but we can make life better for a few creatures near our homes by gardening with them in mind as well as in further away places when, for example, we chose to reduce our consumption meat or shrimp.
As my old friend Steve Schneider used to say it is not a "0" or "1" game - there are many possible futures in between and every little bit makes a difference.
Thanks again for your thoughtful provoking comments.
I wouldn’t doubt that for one second. That’s why I list this as our number one issue. Change that rubric, and I personally think it changes everything. That money in politics has only gotten worse in the past few decades only underscores why I think things are so difficult right now.
<<I believe you and I quite differ on this next point, Bill. I do think that way each of us chose to confront climate change and the biodiversity crisis is of significance. What do we teach others, what signals do we send, with our actions and our words...>>
I’m not sure we disagree as much as it’s an issue of priority. Participating actively in political action isn’t exclusive of taking small, more personal actions. I do many of those small things myself, some prompted by your fine book!
My point is simply that those small, personal, actions will take a generation or more to bear fruit, if they even find any success at all. After the shootings at the Boston Planned Parenthood, a group of concerned people on both sides of the abortion issue got together to try to “bridge the gap.” A decade or so later, they abandoned the project, with zero to show for it. I’m not saying this to mean that it’s impossible, but to show how difficult and time consuming this sort of process can be.
In many areas, I support this kind of approach. It is the best, longer term, way of proceeding. I understand the multipliers when lots of people eat less meat, or what-not, and I try to do my part in that regard. I just don’t personally believe that’s going to be enough to stem the oncoming climate crisis, and I personally prioritize faster, political action.
It is a crisis, after all, no? You don’t sit and have a debate when the ship is sinking, If people don’t want to get on the lifeboats because they don’t believe it when the Captain says the boat is going down, bye bye. You’ll just have to deal with the ramifications of that later. Of course, if they strap you down, you’ll go to the bottom with them, which is what it feels like is happening.
<< But yes - the next few election cycles are CRITICAL.>>
On this, we agree completely, and I guess that’s really what my major point is. The world has a window in which to act, and we’re big players on that stage. If we fail on this, it’s a huge problem, and the divisions in this country create significant headwinds. Abortion and gun control have shown that debate, and even shockingly horrible incidents, haven’t moved the needle much, if at all. I think you can understand why this approach makes me a bit skeptical, especially with the time horizon at play.
What effects change is political power. You saw it with emancipation and civil rights. Yeah, there’s push-back from the “left-behinds,” and there will be back-sliding, but massive and lasting progress DOES come from legislation. It’s hard to put certain Genies back in their bottles. For climate degradation, I think this is the most direct path to a solution, and my hope is that the Democrats can get their platform and messaging together to gain power, hold power, and to exercise that power for the betterment of the country and the world.
Short of that, I hate to say it, but I think our best bet is a real shock to the system, something even the conspiracy nuts can't deny, even if they don't like it. The Ukraine invasion may have done it for Europe, but again, we're too far away, and as you rightly point out, too immature, to see and benefit from the lesson right in front of our eyes.
Maybe you should hold on to a little bit of ranting Pru. Sometimes that is the only way your voice gets heard. Interesting and frustrating topic. Thanks as always for writing your newsletter.
When I said ranting I meant the not so pleasant insinuations of lack of intelligent of which I sometimes accuse those who try to block climate action. To put it mildly. I'm all in favor of listing my reasons for holding my position and even having heated discussions, though suspect quiet conversations may alter opinions more. But I wasn't referring to trying to get my point across when I said maybe I ought to give up ranting. Rather that giving in to my frustrations and letting them boil over into a full fledged "WTF" fest may well have negative consequences. I'm not full convinced but something tells me this kind of ranting is wrong.
I completely agree with your concern about this problem. Personally, I think the bulk of the issue in the U.S. stems from two factors. The first is money in politics. This certainly applies to both sides of the aisle, but the extent to which the Republican party is beholden to the fossil fuel industry (and several others) makes this a pretty lopsided problem. But what’s new? Corporations and the rich have dominated American politics since our inception, and particularly since industrialization. We’ve never dealt properly with that problem, and it continues to haunt us.
The other issue is America’s isolation, and relative independence when it comes to the fluctuations of, and competition for, commodities that impact the rest of the world (not to mention the relative safety being so far from other countries brings). This makes it easy for us to ignore what’s happening elsewhere as “not our problem,” while simultaneously pursuing policies or consumer desires that exacerbate the issue, for example driving huge, fuel inefficient cars.
What’s to be done? I hate to say it, but I think changing hearts and minds is ultimately a losing strategy, particularly when it comes to climate change. The problem is too big and the timeline too short for that approach to do anything meaningful quickly enough to prevent some sort of disaster. In the end, in this country, it comes down to gaining power, and holding onto it long enough to effect meaningful change. The Democrats have been woeful in this regard. Their messaging and organization is simply not good enough to keep the attention of easily distractable voters who despite all their lofty ideals still tend to vote with their pocketbooks on issues that are easier to grasp than the threat of climate change (or general environment degradation).
What may change that is some kind of disaster. Not just worse storms or hotter summers, but a real disaster like marine collapse, or warming to a point that places start to be unlivable. Then people will see it. Of course, by then, it’s too late from the perspective of people like you and me, but it’s all too common to see the traffic light put in after the fatal accident, not before. Look how the E.U. has responded to the Ukraine invasion. Without that, they'd still be sucking at the teat of Russian oil.
The only other option I see is to go full-on Greta Thunberg, and get millions to join in, and keep pounding on the issue. As we know from recent experience, that repetition of message has the ability to woo weak minds to your cause. In this case, the weak minds will support something good for the planet instead of a dogma of hate. Of course, that means pretty much dedicating your life to this issue, largely to the expense of other activities. But it’s going to take something like that, a leader like that, and a movement like that in this country to wake people up before it’s too late.
Prognosis is not good from my perspective, but I guess you never know.
Thanks for your well articulated thoughts Bill.
I see we are in agreement with the problem of money in politics. But according to this article in the Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/ it has gotten much worse in the past few decades...
I liked your point about isolationism of the US. I forget that sometimes, but think you are right in that many Americans really are quite US-centric in their thinking. Similarly, I blame the US' lack of long term thinking on the immaturity of the nation. The US is quite young yet and doesn't seem to have the morality of its older European nations. But undoubtedly the US' size, geography (spanning between two big oceans and hence having only two land neighbors) as well as our abundant resources make us far more self-sufficient - which certainly has plays a role in our responses.
And then there is what to do about climate change. Of course we need nearly immediate action and changing minds isn't going to be the way to reduce our emissions quickly. But if we only concentrate on legislation or regulations then we will continue to be divided by fear and anger and struggle to meet future challenges as well as increasing the hatred of those who don't understand the changes. While a much longer term goal, trying to find unity with our fellow humans is - in my opinion - hugely important. And, you never know, may sway a few votes.
But yes - the next few election cycles are CRITICAL.
As for going full on Greta, more power to anyone who does that. But as you say most of us won't because we have other concerns and desires. I believe you and I quite differ on this next point, Bill. I do think that way each of us chose to confront climate change and the biodiversity crisis is of significance. What do we teach others, what signals do we send, with our actions and our words. We will never know the ramifications of our actions, the ripples of a kind act, or the saving of injured turtle. Most of us are not likely to save a forest or a river, but we can make life better for a few creatures near our homes by gardening with them in mind as well as in further away places when, for example, we chose to reduce our consumption meat or shrimp.
As my old friend Steve Schneider used to say it is not a "0" or "1" game - there are many possible futures in between and every little bit makes a difference.
Thanks again for your thoughtful provoking comments.
<<I see we are in agreement with the problem of money in politics. But according to this article in the Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/ it has gotten much worse in the past few decades... >>
I wouldn’t doubt that for one second. That’s why I list this as our number one issue. Change that rubric, and I personally think it changes everything. That money in politics has only gotten worse in the past few decades only underscores why I think things are so difficult right now.
<<I believe you and I quite differ on this next point, Bill. I do think that way each of us chose to confront climate change and the biodiversity crisis is of significance. What do we teach others, what signals do we send, with our actions and our words...>>
I’m not sure we disagree as much as it’s an issue of priority. Participating actively in political action isn’t exclusive of taking small, more personal actions. I do many of those small things myself, some prompted by your fine book!
My point is simply that those small, personal, actions will take a generation or more to bear fruit, if they even find any success at all. After the shootings at the Boston Planned Parenthood, a group of concerned people on both sides of the abortion issue got together to try to “bridge the gap.” A decade or so later, they abandoned the project, with zero to show for it. I’m not saying this to mean that it’s impossible, but to show how difficult and time consuming this sort of process can be.
In many areas, I support this kind of approach. It is the best, longer term, way of proceeding. I understand the multipliers when lots of people eat less meat, or what-not, and I try to do my part in that regard. I just don’t personally believe that’s going to be enough to stem the oncoming climate crisis, and I personally prioritize faster, political action.
It is a crisis, after all, no? You don’t sit and have a debate when the ship is sinking, If people don’t want to get on the lifeboats because they don’t believe it when the Captain says the boat is going down, bye bye. You’ll just have to deal with the ramifications of that later. Of course, if they strap you down, you’ll go to the bottom with them, which is what it feels like is happening.
<< But yes - the next few election cycles are CRITICAL.>>
On this, we agree completely, and I guess that’s really what my major point is. The world has a window in which to act, and we’re big players on that stage. If we fail on this, it’s a huge problem, and the divisions in this country create significant headwinds. Abortion and gun control have shown that debate, and even shockingly horrible incidents, haven’t moved the needle much, if at all. I think you can understand why this approach makes me a bit skeptical, especially with the time horizon at play.
What effects change is political power. You saw it with emancipation and civil rights. Yeah, there’s push-back from the “left-behinds,” and there will be back-sliding, but massive and lasting progress DOES come from legislation. It’s hard to put certain Genies back in their bottles. For climate degradation, I think this is the most direct path to a solution, and my hope is that the Democrats can get their platform and messaging together to gain power, hold power, and to exercise that power for the betterment of the country and the world.
Short of that, I hate to say it, but I think our best bet is a real shock to the system, something even the conspiracy nuts can't deny, even if they don't like it. The Ukraine invasion may have done it for Europe, but again, we're too far away, and as you rightly point out, too immature, to see and benefit from the lesson right in front of our eyes.
Maybe you should hold on to a little bit of ranting Pru. Sometimes that is the only way your voice gets heard. Interesting and frustrating topic. Thanks as always for writing your newsletter.
Thanks for your comment :^) Always nice to hear it got someone thinking.
When I said ranting I meant the not so pleasant insinuations of lack of intelligent of which I sometimes accuse those who try to block climate action. To put it mildly. I'm all in favor of listing my reasons for holding my position and even having heated discussions, though suspect quiet conversations may alter opinions more. But I wasn't referring to trying to get my point across when I said maybe I ought to give up ranting. Rather that giving in to my frustrations and letting them boil over into a full fledged "WTF" fest may well have negative consequences. I'm not full convinced but something tells me this kind of ranting is wrong.