jump to navigation

The Five Stages of Climate Change Grief June 3, 2010

Posted by Amir Roth in Africa, books, China, clean energy, climate, economy, energy efficiency, environment, society, sustainability, transportation, water efficiency.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

I just finished Bill McKibben’s Eaarth. It’s an account of what we’ve already managed to do to the planet (just frightening when you stop and take stock), what changes we are already locked into (nauseating), and how we can cope with this new planet (alternatingly depressing and ispirational). It’s called “Eaarth” because it describes a planet substantially different than Earth. Personally, I would have named the book “Eartch”. First, it’s Earth + c. Get it? If not, never mind. Second, Eartch sounds like vomit whereas Eaarth just sounds—or at least looks—Dutch. Then again, if anyone knows something about living with climate change and dealing with a rising sea, it’s the Dutch. I still prefer Eartch, though. If there is one talent I have it’s naming things. Whether it’s giving people nicknames. Putting a name on a project. You name it. Actually, I name it. Bill, you should have consulted me!

A few things about McKibben. First, he looks remarkably like someone I used to know—Boyd Multerer, who’s now the GM of Xbox Live. Second, he—is—almost—as—fond—of—m-dashes—as—I—am. —. Third, he uses colloquial phraseology like “Whatever, dude!” and “get real.” Fourth, he pokes fun of Tom Friedman in a loving kind of way. Which is great. Famous people need to rib each other more in print in this way. Just so they don’t start taking themselves too seriously. One of my fears is that I will not be famous enough for someone to rib me in print. That’s actually my third biggest fear—right behind climate change and alligators. The really great thing about McKibben poking fun at Friedman is that he is a lot like Friedman. Except that he is primarily an environmentalist rather than foreign affairs journalist. And he lives in a small town in Vermont rather than in an 11,000 sq. ft. house in Washington, DC. And he doesn’t have an awesome moustache. Now that the NFL draft is over, McKibben may take a spot on Mt. Crushmore, alongside Gregg Easterbrook, my mother, and POTUS BO. Tom Friedman can be Crazy Horse.

Onto Eartch. Do yourself and the rest of us a favor and read it. There is no excuse not to. It’s not very long, you’ll finish it in a few days. If you don’t have a copy and don’t want to buy one—good for you for repressing your consumerist instincts—I will lend you mine. If you don’t know how to read, have someone who does read it to you. Don’t get me wrong, you won’t like what this book has to say. But it will change the way you think. And maybe the way you live too.

So what is it that makes this book different than other climate change books? Basically, it has a different—and sadly much more realistic and grounded—arc. It doesn’t paint some speculative dystopian future, and then turn around and say “if we all stop driving right now, we can stop short of the cliff.” The basic message is that there is literally no way to avoid going off the cliff at this point. Society as a whole—and Western society specifically—is going to end up in a lower place than it was. What we do from here on and how quickly we do it will determine how low we go and how gentle the decline. It’s a bitter message, but it’s strangely reassuring. It feels like the fifth stage of grief.

Let’s start with denial. Americans tend to discount climate change because few of the extreme weather events that are its supposed signatures have happened in the U.S. And if it doesn’t happen in the U.S., it doesn’t actually happen. But stuff like this does happen. On a fairly regular basis these days. Eartch doesn’t prognosticate or speculate. It mostly talks about things that have already happened or are currently happening. There is no need to extrapolate or at least not to extrapolate very far. What’s currently happening is bad enough. And the worst thing about it is its unpredictability. Society is largely built on predictability. No predictability, no society as we currently know it.

If there is something to be angry about right now it’s that we’ve wasted the last 30 years. 31 years ago, POTUS Jimmy Carter delivered his famous “Crisis of Confidence” speech, in which he laid out his vision for America’s—and the world’s—energy and environment future. No more dependence on foreign oil. Alternative fuels. Conservation. Personal responsibility. Coal. The speech was delivered from the Oval Office, a few dozen feet underneath the White House solar panels. We should’ve listened then. We didn’t want to hear any of it. 18 months later it was “Morning in America.” The solar panels came down. Everything was de-regulated and we started off on a 30 year oil-fueled growth bubble that only exploded 18 months ago. Our last good chance to avoid the cliff was 1980. There is no avoiding it now.

Bargaining. Good luck with this one. To quote Leonard Nimoy on “Fringe”: “physics is a bitch.” And it’s not the only one. Chemistry and biology are too. For a long time, the accepted “safe” level for atmospheric CO2—”safe” meaning supporting stable hydrological cycles that bear some resemblance to the current cycles—was 450ppm. Guess what? That number is actually closer to 350ppm. And guess what else? The current concentration is over 390ppm and even stopping it at 450ppm is going to be extremely. On second thought, I think we are going to have to skip this stage and go right to depression.

There is a lot to be depressed about. Climate change means the end of stability and the likely end of meaningful economic growth as we’ve known it. The social pyramid scheme which is economic growth has gotten too top heavy and the earth is collapsing under its weight. The end of economic growth means a reduced aggregate standard of living as we have come to define it. Fewer choices. Fewer material possessions. Less mobility. If there is any justice in the world—and that’s a big if—Western standards for these will need to drop substantially if those for developing countries are to rise to humane levels. We need to accept this.

Acceptance is a strangely liberating thing. Would a society in which we consume fewer resources and have fewer material possessions as a result be a bad society? Would a society in which we traveled less, lived a more local life, be a bad society? Would a society in which some aspects of globalization were reversed and some of our choices were limited by our geographical location be a bad society? Would a society without substantial economic growth, half of which benefits the top 1% anyways, be a bad society? To para-quote Po Bronson, “Freedom is not having unlimited means. Freedom is the knowledge that you can live whatever your means.” We need to re-calibrate our mindset. To redefine success—you know what they say, “If at first you don’t succeed.” We need to redefine prosperity and progress as something other than economic growth. If we do that, it will be easier, mentally, to buckle down and get to the enormous task at hand. And maybe if we do that, we will have Eaarth rather than Eartch.

Thanks Bill.

P.S. How stupid do you have to be to take out a loan at an 85% annual interest rate? Full credit if you answered Eddy Curry. Partial credit if you answered Antoine Walker.

P.P.S. Another Bluejay sighting. But this one wasn’t in Philly. It was in Columbus Circle in DC.

Catholic Church Going Soft? It’s About Time! April 2, 2010

Posted by Amir Roth in Africa, population control, religion, sustainability.
Tags: , , ,
2 comments

Kudos, Archbishop of Westminster! (henceforth, A-West, like a rapper). Kudos A-West for understanding that vicious cycle of over-population, poverty, ignorance, and death that is happening in many areas of the third world (especially Africa) and daring to propose that contraception may be a temporary part of the solution. Benedict XVI, are you listening? By the way, don’t you love the fact that the only things still numbered using Roman numerals are popes, Superbowls, and Hollywood films?

I understand where Catholicism gets its anti-abortion view, but not where it gets its anti-contraception view. Is it from Meaning of Life? I mean, can’t contraception be viewed as an extension of abstinence? You are not killing a zygote, after all. And you are killing a potential zygote in the same way as you would by abstaining, or by sitting in a hot tub, or by masturbating, or by taking a bad-hop grounder to the loins. John Rock, the inventor of the birth control pill, was a devout Catholic. He thought the pill was “Kosher” (sorry to mix my religious metaphors there) because it worked by natural means–the body’s own hormones. By the way, you should really read this article. Not only because you should read anything by Malcolm Gladwell, but because it’s a fascinating scientific story. Evidently, there may be a healthier birth control pill coming around soon, one that works not by convincing the female body that it’s a little bit pregnant and should menstruate regularly, but by convincing it that it is menopausal and should not menstruate at all! Fascinating.

But back to our story. In the developed world, an unwanted child is somewhere between “financial burden” and “blessed surprise.” In the developing world, an unwanted child is a tragedy. That child is usually doomed to a short life of poverty and his or her presence further degrades the conditions and prospects of his siblings and parents. Family planning is a cornerstone of every liberated society that thinks of its women as contributors rather than as concubines, and of every progressive society with the slightest clue about economics and future planning. Unchecked population growth is a scourge on any nation, but especially a poor one. As population grows, limited food, health, and education resources have to get spread out of more and more people, leaving each individual less prosperous and productive. With unproductive individuals, the economy can’t grow to keep pace with the population, sending the country into a spiral of poverty that usually ends in violence and sometimes in state failure. King George the 43rd made many stupid and retrospectively disastrous decisions, but one of the most damaging was his decision to stop all family planning aid to developing nations. By doing so, he helped to foster runaway population growth in sub-Saharan Africa–not to mention the spread of AIDS–and, indirectly, the conflicts in Sudan and Rwanda. Poor nations cannot handle excessive population growth. We can help them confront this problem using education and birth control to help reduce their birth rates. Or we can sit back and watch what’s happening now, which is an increase in their death rates. If you phrase the moral question that way, the answer is pretty clear.

P.S. I hope my three readers (yes, I am up to three) don’t get the impression that I am anti-Catholicism in particular or anti-religion in general. I am not. I am only against 2000 year old dogma that runs counter to the realities of the modern world. By the way, I myself am Jewish, although like my idol Allen Iverson, I rarely practice.

P.P.S. “Want want want want want want want Google PowerMeter” -Allison Roth

P.P.P.S. In other news, this may not actually be as bad as it looks, but it certainly looks bad!