Wednesday, August 8, 2018

Getting Back at It

I go through periods of ecological depression, that is to say, feeling numbed into inaction by the huge task of advocacy and action on behalf of climate change work. I'm thinking that in these days any environmental work, be it habitat preservation, species extermination, point and non-point discharge and run-off or whatever, is all about the climate change work.
I've been out of the loop, in that ecological depression, for some time, but I'm climbing back out. One significant boost has been, as hard as it is to read it and face the music, the NYTime Magazine of August 5, 2018 fully dedicated to climate work under this title: "Thirty years ago, we could have saved the planet." Oh my.
There is much to do, but knowing history (30 years ago et. al.) can help us not repeat doing what we did that did not help.
One thing that history can do is help engage conversation with those who do not see human activity as contributing to the climate's evolution.
Listen to this from the "30 Years Ago" feature piece (the year is 1982, the "Gore" is Al Gore, the setting is a Congressional Hearing on the "greenhouse effect."):
"There emerged, despite the general comity, a partisan divide. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans demanded action. 'Today I have a sense of deja vu,' said Robert Walker, a Republican from Pennsylvania. In each of the last five years, he said, 'we have been told and told and told that there is a problem with the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We all accept that fact, and we realize that the potential consequences are certainly major in their impact on mankind" (sic). Yet they had failed to propose a single law. 'Now is the time,' he said. 'The research is clear. It is up to us now to summon the political will.'
Gore disagreed: a higher degree of certainty was required, he believed, in order to persuade a majority of Congress to restrict the use of fossil fuels. The reforms required were of such magnitude and sweep that they 'would challenge the political will of our civilization."
Here's what I see:
-the research has been "clear" since the early 1980's (actually, before that!)
-Republicans used to be the on the side of environmental law that opened access to markets and increased productivity and a vital economy. What happened?
-Democrats used to be savvy in bi-partisan consensus building. What happened?
-political will is the name of the game then, and now.
Just learned of a big September 8, 2018 action called "Rise for Climate, Jobs and Justice." I'm stepping into it. How about you?

2 comments:

  1. Agree too political, from Al Gore's days to Trump now, hates anything Obama did, no reasoning. People know we are causing it, with our industrial waste. productivity. It depends on where you are on the food chain, in the work area. If you are going to lose your job, or a company has to pay more to cut down pollution, they fight it. The bottom line it is about the money.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for your comment! the money, the economics of it, does drive us. How do we and can we quantify the financial cost of not reducing carbon? Many have done this, I'm sure. Why isn't that cost a big part of our decision-making?

    ReplyDelete