After three years of ongoing research by an international team of scientists, a study commissioned by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme for a first-ever comprehensive Read More
EarthTalk® is a weekly environmental column made available to our readers from the editors of E/The Environmental Magazine Dear EarthTalk: What’s the prognosis for Hawaii’s Read More
High-level representatives from 195 nations party to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification,, along with civic and environmental groups, will meet in Windhoek to assess progress and plan for future actions to address desertification, land degradation and drought, issues that now affect 168 nations at a cost of some $490 billion, not to mention the loss of lives, health, livelihoods, biodiversity and ecosystems.
The area of building efficiency affords tremendous opportunities for both economic growth and reduced environmental impacts. Buildings are the single largest emitters of greenhouse gases. Read More
The overwhelming number of environmental calamities we face overshadows environmental success stories and this undermines efforts to build support for ecological action. People concerned about Read More
I’ve noticed increased activity in the “twittersphere” this week trumpeting many of the well-worn memes of climate denial, apparently due to Barack Obama’s mention of climate Read More
At the national and international level climate action is stalled under the unyielding weight of factionalism and meeting the diverse agenda of a global community. At Read More
Two new reports reiterate the scientific veracity of anthropogenic climate change while reinforcing the interconnectedness of the economy and the environment. The World Economic Forum Read More
Editor’s note: This post is a finalist in Masdar’s Engage blogging contest as part of Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week. Special thanks to Tim Hurst and Nick Aster. The water-energy Read More
Positive narratives may be our best hope for fostering desperately needed environmental action. Decades of ecological warnings have failed to produce the necessary societal changes. The enthralling Read More
While it is easy to understand why so many environmentally concerned people are fearful and pessimistic, these attitudes detract from the goal of improving our environment. Fear is well warranted, we Read More
Technology may not be a panacea to solve the climate crisis, but green applications (eco-apps) are helping to drive awareness and foster responsible action. There Read More
While it is easy to understand why so many environmentally concerned people are fearful and pessimistic, these attitudes detract from the goal of improving our environment. Fear is well warranted, we are on the verge of a widespread ecosystem collapse and we have reached 400 ppm of atmospheric C02 in the arctic. However, rather than just ask how bad things are, we should be asking how we can best address the calamities we face within the time we have available.
Fear mongering does not move us forward, if anything, it alienates people who most need to be brought into the discussion. The reaction to Rio+20 is a great illustration of the point. The summit in Rio has been justifiably described as “weak,” ”remarkably listless,” and a ”disappointment.” Sometimes the zeal of some environmentalists makes it hard for them to recognize progress. The business community’s commitments were the one bright spot at Rio, nonetheless they too were subjected to a barrage of harsh criticisms. One article suggests that progress at Rio was derailed by big business. Some even dismissed the entire process, claiming that the summit was hijacked by powerful corporations.
Peter Bakker is head of the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and he flatly rejects the criticism that the 1,000 businesses that attended Rio were not serious about creating change. As Bakker points out, there are good businesses that work to be more sustainable and there are bad businesses that work to undermine progress. “The 20 percent of really bad guys we need to regulate out of existence…You can go home from Rio totally frustrated and create absolutely nothing, but if you see the result as half full, despite the disappointment, you will see hooks for processes, dialogues and for agreements around targets,” Bakker said.
Facing off in California’s Senate race with incumbent Senator Barbara Boxer this November is Carly Fiorina, whose biggest claim to fame is nearly driving HP into the ground. Earlier this month Fiorina made the rookie-like mistake (made by newbies and veterans alike) of saying something offensive, inappropriate, or stupid near an open microphone; in her case by having good schoolgirl fun with Boxer’s hairdo. How “yesterday” indeed.
More significant is her official message aimed at potential constituents (and party leaders) mocking Boxer’s work as chairperson of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, sponsoring climate change legislation, and promoting a clean(er) energy economy. In a recent attack ad, Fiorina freely plays the inviolable terrorism card, implying Boxers’s leadership on environmental issues precludes an ability to lead on national security. Fiorina’s fear-mongering exposes either a willful ignorance or cynical disregard for even a basic understanding of climate science, while saying nothing substantial on her approach to national security:
Terrorism kills, and Barbara Boxer’s worried about the weather,” Fiorina says in the ad. ”We’ve had enough of her politics. I’ll work to keep you safe.”
There is little new with Fiorina’a pushing emotional buttons in an effort to mislead voters and get elected. The connection between terrorism and “the weather” presumably exists in Fiorina’s mind, but belies how woefully unprepared Fiorina is to lead at the national level.
By mocking Boxer’s statements that climate change is “very important” to national security, Fiorina dismisses the established research, most notably from the Department of Defense and the Center for Naval Analysis (whose work began under the Bush administration), clearly implicating climate change as a serious potential threat to national security. Here easy dismissal of such a threat brings into question just how Fiorina would go about bringing a sustainable, comprehensive, long-term plan addressing such a complex and multi-layered issue. As deadly serious as terrorism is, there is more to national security than a crazed terrorist with a death wish. And there is more to leadership than playing on people’s fears.
Fiorina’s lack of understanding of the full scope of national security issues is reflected in a statement by an aide regarding the attack ad.
The ad is not about climate change. It’s about Boxer’s misplaced priorities,” the aide said on condition of anonymity. “While we can all agree that terrorism is a threat to our country, there is widespread disagreement over the role climate change can play in national security.”
The statement is correct in that it is not about climate change at all, most especially since it refers to “the weather” and presumably someone in Fiorina’s camp must understand the distinction between climate and weather. But just like the verbiage of the attack ad, Fiorina’s aide makes a leap of illogic by implicating “misplaced” priorities as a connection between climate change, terrorism, and national security. If it is truly her belief that climate change either is not real or has no bearing on national security, it would be marginally better if at least Fiorina exhibited the intellectual prowess and honesty to distinguish between climate and weather. But instead she takes the most politically expedient – if entirely misleading – angle, while attempting to distance herself from the very politicizing and pandering from which she engages.
If Fiorina is serious about national security, she should understand the issue is broad and complex, realize that a secure nation is not a fearful nation but is one that reflects that broad understanding, and that real change will not come about through attack ads, misrepresentation of issues, and exploitation of voters’ fears.
Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware bravely faced an onslaught of vehement anger from apparently right-wing constituents in his state , as shown in the video below, shortly after voting in favor of the House Waxman-Markey climate bill, one of only eight Republican to do so.
Amid calls of “traitor,” the assemblage first took on all the common myths and misconceptions surrounding climate change (30,000 scientists say climate change is a hoax, evolution is just a theory, so how can global warming be considered real, etc. etc.), and the discussion devolved from there into all manner of conspiracy theories and generalized rage . Castle stood firm and took the abuse – there was little else he could do. The bizarre scene ended with a woman, enraged because Castle has done nothing to expose the fact that president Obama is not a United States Citizen (all while waiving her own birth certificate and a small American flag above her head) enjoined the crowd to stand and pledge their allegiance to the flag – you’re either with us and our views, or you’re not an American.
There is need for debate on all the important issues of the day (Obama’s birth certificate not among them), most especially climate change, but this was more a verbal lynching than any sort of debate. As I watched these people, seemingly blind with resentment and rage, I began to realize they were acting perhaps more from fear than anger. With that, it seemed easier to find a toe-hold for sympathy, even with people whose views seem so diametrically opposed to my own.
No one makes it through life without experiencing fear, and often that fear is nebulous, hard to pin down, at times making us feel anger. So we look for a culprit on which to focus that anger. In the case of the video it was the hapless (and, I dare say, brave) Mike Castle. Oftentimes that human predilection toward fear can be manipulated by others, cynically preying upon the dark corners of fear that haunt us all.
I am sometimes accused of being an “alarmist” or “fear-mongering” in my stand on climate change and my belief of its urgency as a human and global issue. Despite my intentions merely to educate myself and inform others, it is understandable (if annoying). We are all afraid of change, at one time or another, and we seek the comfort of the known, the familiar. It’s worked this way so well for so long, why can’t we just keep doing it this way forever?
If I am an alarmist, then I am no more so than those on the “other side” of the issue who raise the specter of mass conspiracy, an enormous hoax, principally aimed at taking away the good life that is the right of every American. While my motives are impugned it is difficult not to impugn the motives of others. And who gets caught in the middle but a growing group of people increasingly afraid of a world they don’t understand, and changing in ways they see as dangerous – with voices all around warning of the end of the world as they know it.
And “they” are everyone of us, in one form or another, at one time or another.
Whether we like it, or fully understand it, or not, we stand on a precipice of change on a scale that defines nothing less than a transformation of an era. Change, it’s a comin’.
We are the lucky ones, most of us, probably all of us able to read this post. We enjoy a lifestyle supported by an energy flow and resource base that a mere few decades ago was unimaginable. We have all benefited from this enormous growth, but we now come to realize that business as usual is not sustainable – not for our children, or their children, even for us, if we hope to trod the planet for another two or three decades. That much seems clear, no matter what you think about climate change.
So what do we do now? Many would have us continue on as usual, pretend that we don’t see the handwriting on the wall – the collapsing fisheries, depleted oil fields, denuded soil, sinking water tables, disappearing and dying forests… It is in our evolutionary nature to see the here and now, it is hard to anticipate what is over the horizon, and if your daily needs are not being met, it makes little sense to worry about what might happen in twenty or thirty years in any case.
But this is what is required for our evolution as a civilized society and species; that we acknowledged we have over-reached, that business as usual is not sustainable, and to have faith that what lay before us is at once an enormous and daunting challenge, and the greatest opportunity our troubled species has ever had – to make a better world, to make a more just world, to make a sustainable world. One that can endure for generations to come.
There are extremes on both ends of the spectrum, and there are those that will play those extremes against each other to insure their own short-term gain. Our job is to not succumb to the worst in our nature, and see the one common dominator we all share. We’re all here right now, and we want to live our lives, and leave a place where our children, and theirs, can grow and prosper in a balanced an healthy world.