It’s not always our job to provide coherent, cogent arguments. Sometimes it’s our job to ask the right questions and shift the burden of proof.
Where is the evidence that says climate change is causing extinction? Here’s something that says it isn’t.
Do other species have rights?
How much damage are we going to do to this land in the name of saving the climate?
Where are the numbers that say this project is going to lower anyone’s carbon footprint? Let’s say it does. Then what?
Just some thoughts.
Thanks for your work!
Also, Anastassia Makarieva says that although it is settled science that greenhouse gases should cause warming, it’s not at all clear why, as a matter of course, warming should cause instability. Where’s the science that says warming should cause instability? It’s not there.
It is not warming but the removal of ecosystems that causes instability, arguably.
Another tactic is to show that the people who pretend to care about fossil fuels do not have a plan for lowering the use of fossil fuels. And the people who pretend to care about lowering carbon dioxide do not have a plan for lowering carbon dioxide.
Well, in the political realm we have to be able to shift opinion and raise outcry. And that means overcoming the carbon reductionism that has been so firmly established. What worries me is that these cuts in oversight strip the public of their right to a full vetting of the risks, and will have repercussions for the land for a long time.
Really good point about instability. That makes sense. Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., who I'm currently writing a piece on, says something similar, that hydraulic extremes like drought and flooding don't really respond to generalized global warming, not nearly as much as to land change, if I am understanding him correctly.
For me, the unacknowledged issue is an expected, entitled income to buy a lifestyle we think is fair and reasonable. What does it take to make this kind of money? What does Mother Earth have to give up so we can live the lifestyle we all work hard to provide for one another-- one with massive amounts of consumer goods and services? We see some green still around... some birds... and we see many, many people with large houses, yards, cars, investments, vacations... purchased by people who seem responsible and deserving by their creativity and doggedness in the marketplace. A limitless income and right to consume is seen and desired by the rest of humanity, or at least the rest of the over-developed world. Anyone who doesn't try to generate as much success and income as possible is seen as foolish.
The carrying capacity of the planet is absolutely not part of this set of expectations.
When I was in middle school, we learned that the US lifestyle would require 3 additional Earths for the rest of humanity to enjoy the same. This was in the mid-70's when there was a brief worry that the environment might be more important/neccessary than current economic systems, that we needed to scale back.
When I ask people who are well off what they think the future holds, they mostly say that it's too late, and nothing they could do would change this trajectory. I point out that during covid, when movement and production were slowed, ecologies started healing, some quickly. The oil companies were asking for handouts as gas prices fell. When I suggest that we could live more simply, the conversation ends. It might be something like a problem of addiction.
Very insightful. We see everything but that which is right in front of us, we are addicted to growth, to the feeling it gives us, and we can't imagine giving it up. The problem with "green" energy for me is not only the terrible amount of land conversion, but what it's powering--blatant excess and militarism. There's no way I'm going to sacrifice the land to power that.
I think the reluctance to reduce lifestyle and expectations is partly because the burden of change is not equally or equitably shared. The super rich are making no effort, which is exactly what you would expect.
The other reason is that no one has cast a compelling vision. We don’t know what we’re missing. We can’t see what we’ve lost. I’ll show you how to get back half your time and half your money. We daily pay for things that we wouldn’t want or need if we had a choice in the matter.
The average American pays over $10,000 a year to own and operate a car. Did we choose that? Or was it chosen for us? We pay similarly exorbitant prices for “defense.” We pay, but do not get a choice in the matter. We pay for timber companies to extract timber from public lands at below the market value.
I could go on and on. The operative fact is that we are not in charge. If there is one thing I would communicate to well meaning people who care about the environment is that our “democracy” is a sham. Stop pretending that it’s real. Stop giving it legitimacy by pretending that one or the other political party is better than the other.
You bring up some really excellent points, thank you. I actually felt nervous about posting my opinions because I believe you’re right, we haven’t really chosen this life, and I guess I am blaming. Most people are making the best of what’s been presented to them. It is important to support each other and tease apart this entire mess we’re in and see what we can do.
Great points. Quick comment.
It’s not always our job to provide coherent, cogent arguments. Sometimes it’s our job to ask the right questions and shift the burden of proof.
Where is the evidence that says climate change is causing extinction? Here’s something that says it isn’t.
Do other species have rights?
How much damage are we going to do to this land in the name of saving the climate?
Where are the numbers that say this project is going to lower anyone’s carbon footprint? Let’s say it does. Then what?
Just some thoughts.
Thanks for your work!
Also, Anastassia Makarieva says that although it is settled science that greenhouse gases should cause warming, it’s not at all clear why, as a matter of course, warming should cause instability. Where’s the science that says warming should cause instability? It’s not there.
It is not warming but the removal of ecosystems that causes instability, arguably.
Another tactic is to show that the people who pretend to care about fossil fuels do not have a plan for lowering the use of fossil fuels. And the people who pretend to care about lowering carbon dioxide do not have a plan for lowering carbon dioxide.
Well, in the political realm we have to be able to shift opinion and raise outcry. And that means overcoming the carbon reductionism that has been so firmly established. What worries me is that these cuts in oversight strip the public of their right to a full vetting of the risks, and will have repercussions for the land for a long time.
Really good point about instability. That makes sense. Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., who I'm currently writing a piece on, says something similar, that hydraulic extremes like drought and flooding don't really respond to generalized global warming, not nearly as much as to land change, if I am understanding him correctly.
I heard from a friend today that this bill didn't pass, this time.
Hmm. I heard it passed, the house bill at least. Maybe it failed in the senate. Thanks for the good news, I hope!
Thank you always Rob. The work there is to do everywhere is exhausting. I understand.
Thanks, Beth!
This is a good article. Thank you.
For me, the unacknowledged issue is an expected, entitled income to buy a lifestyle we think is fair and reasonable. What does it take to make this kind of money? What does Mother Earth have to give up so we can live the lifestyle we all work hard to provide for one another-- one with massive amounts of consumer goods and services? We see some green still around... some birds... and we see many, many people with large houses, yards, cars, investments, vacations... purchased by people who seem responsible and deserving by their creativity and doggedness in the marketplace. A limitless income and right to consume is seen and desired by the rest of humanity, or at least the rest of the over-developed world. Anyone who doesn't try to generate as much success and income as possible is seen as foolish.
The carrying capacity of the planet is absolutely not part of this set of expectations.
When I was in middle school, we learned that the US lifestyle would require 3 additional Earths for the rest of humanity to enjoy the same. This was in the mid-70's when there was a brief worry that the environment might be more important/neccessary than current economic systems, that we needed to scale back.
When I ask people who are well off what they think the future holds, they mostly say that it's too late, and nothing they could do would change this trajectory. I point out that during covid, when movement and production were slowed, ecologies started healing, some quickly. The oil companies were asking for handouts as gas prices fell. When I suggest that we could live more simply, the conversation ends. It might be something like a problem of addiction.
Very insightful. We see everything but that which is right in front of us, we are addicted to growth, to the feeling it gives us, and we can't imagine giving it up. The problem with "green" energy for me is not only the terrible amount of land conversion, but what it's powering--blatant excess and militarism. There's no way I'm going to sacrifice the land to power that.
This is SO well said!!
I think the reluctance to reduce lifestyle and expectations is partly because the burden of change is not equally or equitably shared. The super rich are making no effort, which is exactly what you would expect.
The other reason is that no one has cast a compelling vision. We don’t know what we’re missing. We can’t see what we’ve lost. I’ll show you how to get back half your time and half your money. We daily pay for things that we wouldn’t want or need if we had a choice in the matter.
The average American pays over $10,000 a year to own and operate a car. Did we choose that? Or was it chosen for us? We pay similarly exorbitant prices for “defense.” We pay, but do not get a choice in the matter. We pay for timber companies to extract timber from public lands at below the market value.
I could go on and on. The operative fact is that we are not in charge. If there is one thing I would communicate to well meaning people who care about the environment is that our “democracy” is a sham. Stop pretending that it’s real. Stop giving it legitimacy by pretending that one or the other political party is better than the other.
You bring up some really excellent points, thank you. I actually felt nervous about posting my opinions because I believe you’re right, we haven’t really chosen this life, and I guess I am blaming. Most people are making the best of what’s been presented to them. It is important to support each other and tease apart this entire mess we’re in and see what we can do.
I agree with all your points. Superficial question: What do you do? “Tease apart” is a term academics often use.
Enlightened peasant 🙂