howardpark/environment

When I first saw this picture, I was filled with outrage and disgust. But then a great ambivalence overtook me. On the one hand, there is no question in my mind that whales are just as capable of feeling pain, fear, grief, and many other emotions as humans are. In that light, the hunting of whales is an act of brutality, pure and simple. The hunting of whales with industrial weaponry is in addition cowardly and venal. The hunting of whales by Japan is, on top of everything else, cynical and deceitful (how many "tissue samples" do they need, and what exactly do they learn by eating them?).

On the other hand, who are we to tell other countries how to behave? Are our values and customs really so superior to theirs? Let us all remember that what we are doing in Iraq is also an act of brutality. And Iraqis are not merely "just as capable of feeling" as humans--they ARE humans, whose lives are every bit as precious as those of American soldiers (though some people seem not to recognize this)! When you start a war on false pretenses, invade and occupy another country, torture your prisoners, and slaughter civilians by the thousands, you can't expect other people to take your moral objections very seriously. And if you then make it crystal clear that you're going to keep on behaving however the hell you want, you have no right to criticize others for doing the same. That's what it means to be the bad guy.

One justification I often hear from people who remain unconvinced about global warming is that "there's no real proof" and we should "keep an open mind" or "wait and see." A fellow Stumbler even went so far as to say that climate science could not claim to be certain of anything until it was as indisputable as mathematics. Well, if that's your definition of certainty, no amount of science is ever going to convince you. You may just as well "keep an open mind" about the idea that the earth orbits the sun. The reason most people no longer feel the need to doubt that idea is that it fits together with many lines of evidence from many scientists working in many different fields--just like the evidence for global climate change.

There is clearly a double standard being applied here. Those who insist on absolute certainty when it comes to the health of the planet have no problem accepting much less substantial evidence when it comes to their own comfort and well-being (just ask them to refuse medication because "there's no real proof" it will work). One explanation for this bit of hypocrisy is that it is other people's survival in greatest jeopardy, not their own. Climate deniers almost always come from regions least likely to face total devastation, and from populations most able to evade it. And as Thorstein Veblen observed, people tend to downplay, or even invite, risks that they believe will hurt others more than themselves (remember the attitude of conservative Christians toward AIDS when they thought it was a gay men's disease?).

Another double standard in the climate debate concerns the reliability of sources. Climate deniers frequently accuse others of being "brainwashed," accepting the opinion of the "liberal media" as gospel, and believing in climate change only because other people do. Yet they themselves are only too ready to believe the most transparent misinformation when it suits their agenda, no matter how thoroughly it has been debunked. The reason they are attracted to such dishonest and irrelevant "evidence" is that it confirms their social ideas ("it's all a conspiracy," "environmentalists are dupes," etc.) rather than scientific ones. In other words, their beliefs are based on antagonism toward other social groups, not on any enthusiasm for the truth.

None of this would matter very much if we were talking about some abstruse metaphysical question--but we're not. We're talking about a real disaster that will affect billions of real human lives. Those who attempt to justify inaction, who put certainty before humanity, are not merely taking an academic position--they are contributing to a worldwide catastrophe.

(Thanks to thisismebecca for this picture.)

If the behavior of governments, corporations, and individuals continues on its present course, we will have a very grim future indeed. If, on the other hand, everyone were to cooperate on reducing our environmental impact, we could get through the nightmare of global warming relatively intact (compared to what's in store for most species). Most likely, we will follow a middle path, with some people accepting the new reality and some people, for whatever reason (greed, ignorance, natural conservatism, or just trying to advance one's career), resisting it. Assuming we take this middle path--assuming, in other words, that we don't go all-out and embrace something very radical very soon--this is what we have to look forward to, according to NASA's chief climatologist, Jim Hansen:

• Many species will have to migrate to find habitats they can still live in. Those that cannot migrate, or whose migrations are blocked by urban sprawl, will perish. Those adapted to cold climates will "in effect, be pushed off the planet." And species that depend on those species will also have to adapt or perish. In short, 50 to 90% of the earth's species will become extinct. Repeat for emphasis: Up to 90% of all species on earth will disappear forever. As species die off, there will be a "winner take all" effect, as only the hardiest species flourish throughout the globalized ecosphere. Such a catastrophic decline in the diversity of the world's animal and plant species will have far-reaching effects on food supplies, water quality, medicine, and many other aspects of human life.
  
  
• As global temperatures rise, much of the water now bound up in ice sheets will become liquid, causing a rise in sea levels. For reference, the coldest ice ages of the past half million years were about 10°F colder than today, and sea levels were 400 feet lower. The hottest periods were about 2°F hotter than today, and sea levels were 16 feet higher. The current climate crisis will raise the Earth's temperature by about 5°F, the same as 3 million years ago, when sea levels were 80 feet higher than today. 50 million Americans will be displaced by this rise in sea level; 250 million Chinese; 120 million Bangladeshis; 150 million Indians. People who scoff at the effects of a few degrees of warming are either incredibly uninformed or willfully ignorant.
  
  
• Melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets will accelerate autocatalytically, which means that the melting, once it gets started, will produce even more melting. This is basically because water is darker than ice, which means it absorbs more sunlight and thus more heat. Since water absorbs heat faster than ice, its temperature goes up faster, melting more ice into water, which absorbs more heat, and so on. In addition, the melted water bores holes in the ice sheets and lubricates the zone between the ice and the ground, allowing the sheets to slide rapidly into the ocean.
  
  
• The American corporatocracy will probably attempt to thwart any solution, buying off the corrupt government and spreading misinformation among the public. Conservative interest groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute have already succeeded in preventing government action when it would have really mattered (at this point, no matter what we do, warming is going to continue for at least the next few centuries). Like lemmings, the American people have largely gone along with this propaganda, for 3 basic reasons: 1) most Americans are no longer educated enough to understand even basic science, 2) many Americans are so addicted to religious delusions like "intelligent design" that they no longer accept scientific reality, and 3) many Americans simply refuse to believe anything that might challenge them to reconsider their outlandish, luxurious way of life.
  
  
• As people around the world begin to understand why their cities are being wiped off the face of the earth, there will be a violent anti-American backlash. Literally billions of people made homeless by American greed and excess will have plenty of time and motivation to reduce America's effect on the environment--by any means necessary.

Assuming enough of the biosphere remains to support human life, who will the survivors be? Darwin observed that it is not the strongest of a species that survive, but the most adaptable. Applied to human societies, those most capable of adjusting to new circumstances are most likely to endure. Those that cling to outmoded notions, whose arrogance or traditionalism prevents them from facing reality, will be wiped out.

(The painting is Pieter Bruegel the Elder's The Triumph of Death.)

In the land of the Hummer and the Big Gulp, a website extolling the virtues of smallness can seem like a lost cause. The evident pride with which Americans display the symbols of their decadent and unsustainable lifestyle suggests that we are either monumentally ignorant or criminally self-absorbed. Why do we glorify things that are so unglorious? According to the editors of Smallist, it's a result of social competition gone berserk. You used to have an Explorer, but then your neighbors got a Yukon, leaving you no choice but to buy a Hummer. Biologists and economists call this behavior "within-group conflict." When it gets out of control, members of the group tend to overlook threats posed by non-members (called "between-group conflict"). That's why unrestrained within-group conflict has historically been a good predictor of decline in the fortunes of that group. On the eve of the fall of Baghdad (1258 C.E.), the caliph's wazirs were maneuvering for position--against each other--in a court that was about to be annihilated. Future historians may well observe that on the eve of our own destruction, Americans were more concerned with oppressing other Americans (gays, immigrants, etc.) than with solving the problems that threaten us all.

Most videos are not worth the time it takes to watch them (let alone make them), in my opinion. This video is one of the rare exceptions. Please click on the link above.


Wombat for President!

"The Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land.... How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land?... The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth." (speech commonly attributed to Chief Seattle, Skokomish tribe, 1854)


What's so important about respecting private property, when the people who originally sliced off that piece of the Earth and called it "their own" did so with a spear, a sword, a gun? Every inch of our Earth belongs to everyone, and we have just as much right to walk on "your" land as you do.