First, let me apologize for the lack of creativity in the title. If imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, then Bill deserves his due. More to the point, though, is that the original hook of the nineties deserves, indeed demands, to be updated to the new century, with its new priorities.
It appears that we have approached an inflection point in which roles have been reversed, and from this point on, The Environment will drive the economy. The problem is, we don't know what The Environment's agenda is. The new slave would be wise to be a bit concerned, but the new slave did not arrive at this inflection point by virtue of wisdom.
I have not been around long enough to have an appropriate time-line for reference of current events to earth's paleontological history. But I've been around long enough to judge from observation that what we've seen in the past five years in environmental disasters, man-made and natural, dwarfs my awareness of the preceding 35 years of my adult life.
Whether recent events are natural or human induced is somewhat secondary to the fact that they appear to be happening with increasing frequency and magnitude across a broad array of phenomena.
Whether they are increasingly severe because of their intrinsic intensity or because human-kind has chosen to plant itself unwisely in their path is secondary to the fact that these events are exacting an escalating toll on a society that will find it increasingly difficult to bear the burden of economic regeneration.
Whether we are rebuilding better and generating economic activity to replace the loss is secondary to the fact that each rebuild is to restore something of value rather than to add to our net capital.
It is difficult to imagine where this new paradigm will go, but it is not difficult to imagine that we will have to re-calibrate our thinking to address a new set of independent drivers and dependent variables.
* * *
When I first became tangentially involved in the climate change issue in 2004, I emerged from a workshop convinced that nature was only half of the problem. The more troubling half would be how human society would choose to handle it. Based on my experience with that issue at a very local level over the ensuing years, my concerns have been ratified by experience. We are failing the management challenge. We are congratulating ourselves on how far we've progressed from doing nothing, but are oblivious or in denial about how far we have to go to address the phenomenon of climate change effectively, and what we truly need to do to get there.
When I began my active involvement in Climate Change, I focused on impacts in the belief that, until society understands the impacts of Climate Change, it is unlikely to summon the critical level of commitment to deal with prevention. Over the past seven years, I have concluded that prevention is retreating beyond reality and is a crutch for those who cannot face the fact that society will fail to address the issue until its actuality is presented in a way that only the dullest of minds can persist in ignoring. I have sustained some level of hope that we might begin meaningful action to prepare for impacts, but even the events of the past three years fail to convince the average citizen and too many civic leaders that we have a trend in the making that demands their attention.
In the December 7th New York Times, Andrew Revkin posts a conversation with Naomi Klein regarding human-kind's approach to dealing with climate change. Ms. Klein's position is that the necessary action to address the threat of climate change is nothing less than a radical restructuring of society, a re-ordering of how we live. As a theoretical statement, she has a valid point, in my opinion. Unfortunately, it is irrelevant because it is virtually unlikely to happen. She further distances herself from reality by two other observations:
- She concludes that the developed world which has most substantially contributed to the human induced component of climate change has a moral obligation to assist the underdeveloped world which will be disproportionate victims of this phenomenon. One minor point: the developed world is broke. You can't tell that by the blandishments of the glitterati, but we're broke. Further, we're not mustering the resources and knowledge we have to the tasks that needing tending within our own societies. By what wisdom or means are we supposed to lift the burden of others. This is not so much a justification for us to do nothing as an observation of fact as to why Ms. Klein should contemplate a Plan B.
- Ms. Klein unflinchingly blames President Obama for not leading. Anyone who has read some of my prior blogs knows that I have shared my own despair at Mr. Obama's failure to make a direct case on the matter of energy. But, looking at his operating environment through Machiavellian eyes, it is clear to me why he has taken several indirect approaches to advancing energy and climate. It is difficult to engage a hostile force when you have an army of cowards behind you. Far behind you. The political and cultural problems confronting climate change (to say nothing of the economic ones) are far more complex and daunting than can be rationally placed at one man's feet. And who, I wonder, would be Ms. Klein's model of leadership and, more importantly, accomplishment in a venue of comparable scale?
* * *
Climate Change is but a part of the broader environmental paradigm. It does not encompass earthquakes and tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. It does not address over-fishing and depletion of arable lands and potable water sources. It will be exacerbated by the quest for 'cheap' energy, but it did not cause our approaching date with the destiny of non-renewable resources.
Ironically the energy and climate change paradigms are entering a phase of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). A warming climate will demand more energy, and more fossil fuel utilization in the near to intermediate term producing a positive feedback loop that will lock in a further warming climate. And for the demented Deniers who will rejoice if their thesis of a cooling climate should happen by whatever means, here's a comforting thought: a cooling planet with diminishing fossil fuels will not necessarily be a more inviting place. But then, you and I will be dead by then, and that's all that matters.
Onward
20111211
Copyright 2011
Recent Comments