Psst–did someone say…CLIMATE CHANGE???

A Year Full of Weather Disasters and an Economic Toll to Match – NYTimes.com.

Here is yet another example of the way the mainstream press reports on climate change without actually using that oh-so-loaded term.

“Normally, three or four weather disasters a year in the United States will cause at least $1 billion in damages each. This year, there were nine such disasters… These nine billion-dollar disasters tie the record set in 2008, according to a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”

The article goes on to say that the NOAA “is taking several steps to try to make the nation more “weather ready,” including making more precise forecasts, improving the ability to alert local authorities about risks and developing specialized mobile-ready emergency response teams.”

But not a word about what really needs to be done to slow down this destructive trend, saving lives and livelihoods, not to mention the environment itself–REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS!!!!

I wonder how the Times is going to cover the big climate change action coming up on Sept 24?  Check out Moving Planet for more info and to get involved.

Information warriors, we need you!

Tough times ahead

Thinking more on this question of whether an American bust could be good for the planet, the problem is that the current political machinations are aimed at producing boom times for the very wealthy, while leaving the rest of us on the banks gasping for air.

And as the wealthy (individuals and corporations) have more money to slosh around, they have more and more influence in politics.

The result: a hollow democracy and a hollow Empire, ripe for a fall.

It’s going to be interesting, in a macabre sort of way, to see which comes first: climate change catastrophe, or economic catastrophe.

Either way, we’re looking at tough times ahead.

Let a billion ordinary heroes bloom!

Mark Hertsgaard dedicates his book Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth to his young daughter, Chiara, born in 2005 as the snowball of climate change began picking up momentum.  Perhaps because he has her constantly in mind as he’s working on the book, he does something science writers rarely do: he begins his book by invoking fairy tales, and returns to them several times as he goes along.

Science writers are usually at great pains to be empirical—that is, to convince us, by their impeccable sources and detailed documentation, that what they’re telling us is true.  Hertsgaard does this, of course: there are the usual obligatory paragraphs of statistics, drawn from unimpeachable sources like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the various climate experts he interviews.  But for me some of the strongest, most memorable passages in the book are the ones where he relies on the imaginative power of fairy tales to get his message across.

In his very first chapter, he goes back to the psychologist Bruno Bettelheim, who analyzed fairy tales in his book The Uses of Enchantment, concluding that children learn from fairy tales that “’a struggle against severe difficulties in life is unavoidable, is an intrinsic part of human existence.’ But, Bettelheim  continues, ‘if one does not shy away, but steadfastly meets unexpected and often unjust hardships, one masters all obstacles and at the end emerges victorious’” (Hertsgaard, 16).

The first fairy tale Hertsgaard writes about is E.T.A. Hoffman’s “The Nutcracker,” with which his daughter Chiara fell in love as a young toddler.  “After seeing The Nutcracker ballet onstage, Chaira began acting out the story at home.  She invariably cast herself as Clara; her mother or I was assigned to play the godfather, the prince, or both.  One day, after she and I had played the game for about the three hundreth time, I got distracted.  To my half-listening ears, the music seemed to indicate the start of the battle scene, so as the prince I began to brandish my sword.  A puzzled look appeared on Chiara’s face.  It took her a moment to realize that her father was confused.  She looked up and carefully explained, ‘No, Daddy.  It is still the party.  The danger is not here yet.’”

Hertsgaard tells this charming personal story to illustrate his point that “the party, so long and pleasurable, that gave rise to global warming is…still underway.”  For most of us, the danger does not yet seem real, so it’s hard to feel the urgency to change our lifestyles, which are after all so comfortable, familiar and, let’s face it, fun, at least for the upper crust.  Hertsgaard goes back again to the fairy tale model some pages later to put out a call for “thousands of ordinary heroes to step forward and fight for our future,” to tame the many-headed hydra of climate change.

This call echoes that of Philip Zimbardo, the Stanford psychologist who gained prominence as a young professor in the 1970s by conducting the infamous Stanford prison experiment, where he showed that if put into the right circumstances, the most ordinary young men will become fascist torturers.  After the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, Zimbardo was called upon to explain how those ordinary American soldiers could have engaged in such horrific sadistic acts.  But by then his own focus had shifted.  Zimbardo is now much more interested in examining how it is that ordinary folks step up and become heroes, because he too is convinced that our society is gravely in need of “thousands of ordinary heroes” to turn things around.

When I was about eight years old, a very powerful revelation of the destructiveness of humanity prompted me to start writing my first story.  It happened like this. We always arrived at our country house at night, and the next morning I would always get up around sunrise and go out, with great excitement, to see what was happening in the natural landscape I loved so much.

On this May morning, I was shocked to see, at the bottom of the driveway, piles of maple branches, their small, bright green, new leaves withering on the ground, sap oozing out of the cut branches—a holocaust of new life.  Shocked and upset, I raced back home to tell my mother what had happened.  I expected that she would be upset too, but instead she calmly explained, “The power company must have come to trim branches along the lines.” That was all there was to it; there was nothing to be done and it wasn’t worth getting upset over.  Her response just infuriated me more, and out of that fury my first story was born.

It was about a wood nymph named Estrella, who set out on a quest to save her forest from human destruction.  I wrote about the council of animals and forest spirits that decided that such a quest must be undertaken, and I wrote about Estrella setting off with two animal companions.  But beyond that the story petered out, because I could not imagine a solution to the problem; I couldn’t think of how a wood nymph and some animals could stop humans with chain saws.  At that age I was reading my way through all of the Lang fairytale collection, so you’d think I would have been able to invent some powerful magic to do the trick.  But I wanted a “real” solution.  I knew that the problem I was dealing with was no fairytale, it was very much of this world, and I wanted to solve it…I just didn’t know how.

Now I am realizing that in order to accomplish the deep changes necessary to create a human society that values life and harmony more than domination and destruction, the old heroic quest model will not suffice.  Like Hertsgaard and Zimbardo, I know now that we can’t wait for a hero or a charismatic leader to take up the challenge and make everything right.  We need the kind of small-scale, unheralded acts, made daily by people all over the world, not because they expect to become famous and marry into royalty at the end, but because they are committed to living harmoniously with the ecological world of which we humans are a part; because they value life, and want to live their values.

Towards the end of Hot, Hertsgaard invents his own fairytale, which I hope he actually produces as an illustrated children’s book—it’s wonderful!  I won’t give it away here, other than to observe that it’s about how a whole village worked together to throw off tyranny and create a more sustainable, joyful place to live.  There is no clever young boy outwitting the giant; no princess standing fast in the face of a dragon.  Just ordinary people—in this case, ordinary young people, since  the children lead the way—standing up to do what’s right.

Fairytales may be fiction, but as Bettelheim and so many other analysts have realized, they point the way to deep truths.  I’ll have more to say on the importance of telling new stories in future posts.  For now, let a billion ordinary heroes bloom!

Global Warming: Time to Hold the Criminals to Account

There’s a disturbing synchronicity in the fact that I started to re-read Mark Hertsgaard’s new book Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth just as the first serious heat wave of 2011 was hitting New York City, my hometown.  I first read Hot back in June, just as a series of freak tornadoes hit my current home state of Massachusetts, devastating a section of Springfield, MA, some 50 miles from my home.

Climate experts will say that tornadoes cannot be definitively linked to global warming, but you won’t find them hedging about the longer and hotter heat waves we’ve been having—as science reporter Andrew C. Revkin writes flatly in his New York Times blog, Dot Earth, “the summer of 2011 is indicative of the new climatological norms that are emerging as conditions neatly echo longstanding projections of the consequences of steadily raising the concentration of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.”

I count myself very lucky to be riding out this heat wave in lovely Nova Scotia, where the temperatures have been in the 60s and 70s during the days, 50s at night.  Remember those “Canadian High” days we used to have during the summers back in the 1970s?  That’s what it’s like all the time here in these northern latitudes, and it sure feels good.  But I’ll have to go home a few weeks from now, into the dog days of a New England August, and frankly, after reading Hot, along with Bill McKibben’s new book Eaarth, I’m filled with foreboding.  Clearly we have upset the balance of our ecological system very badly in my nearly-fifty years on this planet, and things are not going to be the same.

It’s easy to slip into anthropomorphisms when talking about Earth, as in Mother Earth: Mother Earth has lost her patience with us destructive humans, and she’s not going to take the abuse we’ve been dishing out any more.  She’s going to put us in our place.

Of course, I don’t really believe that there is any moral retribution involved in the current climate backlash, at least not on Earth’s side.  We have upset the balance, and the system will now run its course until balance is restored—which could take a very long time, in geological terms.  “The past 250 years of industrialization have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 390 parts per million—the highest level in the last 800,000 years, and probably in the last 20 million years,” Hertsgaard writes.

Will it take that long for balance to be restored?  Earth has the time…but humans, and many of the other life forms currently on the planet—from polar bears to coral reefs, from maple trees to monarch butterflies—will probably not make it through.  Many scientists have begun to talk about the  “Holocene extinction event” as something that is now unfolding in slow motion—the Holocene being our current planetary epoch.  Climate change could speed things up quite a bit, and humans could be added to the long list of Earth denizens who vanished during this time.

This is not idle speculation, and it’s not fearmongering either.  It’s simply looking the near future straight in the eye, and coming to terms with what’s already happening.  It was 108 degrees Farenheit in Newark, New Jersey yesterday, 104 degrees in New York City.  These are unprecedented temperatures, and I don’t need a climatologist to tell me so—I’ve lived in these latitudes all my life, and I know what’s “normal,” at least for the past 50 years.

In a recent New York Times op-ed, scientist Heidi Cullen of the research and media organization Climate Central discusses the newly released climate “normals” calculated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) every ten years. “The latest numbers, released earlier this month,” she writes, “show that the climate of the last 10 years was about 1.5 degrees warmer than the climate of the 1970s, and the warmest since the first decade of the last century. Temperatures were, on average, 0.5 degrees warmer from 1981 to 2010 than they were from 1971 to 2000, and the average annual temperatures for all of the lower 48 states have gone up.”

These hotter temperatures may be the new normal, but they’re not natural.  “Heat-trapping pollution at least doubled the likelihood of the infamous European heat wave that killed more than 30,000 people during the summer of 2003, according to a study in the journal Nature in 2004,” Cullen writes. “By 2050, assuming we continue to pump heat-trapping pollution into our atmosphere at a rate similar to today’s, New Yorkers can expect the number of July days exceeding 90 degrees to double, and those exceeding 95 degrees to roughly triple. Sweltering days in excess of 100 degrees, rare now, will become a regular feature of the Big Apple’s climate in the 2050s.”

Who wants to hear that?  And yet, faced with the kind of extreme temperatures we’ve seen across the U.S. this summer, how can we continue to bury our heads in the sands of denial?  As Mark Hertsgaard writes, if we continue to sit on our collective hands and let Big Oil run the show, we’ll all be out of luck when Tanker Earth hits the proverbial iceberg and sinks (though we may have to find another metaphor soon, icebergs are going to become a thing of the past).

Hertsgaard makes a persuasive comparison between the crimes committed by Big Tobacco in the 20th century, when they hired lawyers, lobbyists, scientists and reporters to make the blatantly false case that cigarette smoking was perfectly healthy.  Eventually society caught up with them, and although cigarettes continue to be part of our social landscape, they are much more tightly monitored and those who use them know the consequences.

Now it’s Big Oil that has been using the same playbook, complete with highly paid lawyers, lobbyists, scientists and reporters, to make the case that burning fossil fuels has nothing to do with global warming, which is uncertain and probably false anyway.  Right.  They may have the big bucks, but it’s us poor suckers who are going to be the first to go down with the big storms hit, as Katrina showed us so graphically.

Bill McKibben says that we’ve gone past the tipping point—we’ve thrown the climate far enough off balance that it will not return to its previous Holocene normal during our lifetimes.  But that is not to say that we should give up!  On the contrary, we must throw ourselves into the fight to move into what Hertsgaard calls the “third era of global warming”: the transition to renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and much more efficient living.  We have the technology and the knowledge to make this transition: all we need is sufficient will.

I, for one, am going to do everything I can in the coming years to rouse the sleeping giant of the U.S. citizenry.  Big Oil and Big Agriculture may have more money than any individual, but they are not more powerful than all of us acting collectively, and they are not above the law.  It is not hyperbole to call what they are doing to our planet a crime against humanity.  It’s time to hold them to account.