Compassion for the Deniers, Skeptics, Ignorers and Delayers

Finally, there's a reason to feel compassion for those who deny the climate change emergency, ignore it, or simply don't seem to give a damn about those already (and soon to be) impacted.

They fear their own mortality. They are afraid of death. And that fear drives them to hold fast to anxiety-buffering worldviews or "immortality projects" that sometimes act as barriers to sustainable practices.

This is an idea that I've been aware of for a while now (see Janis L. Dickinson's The People Paradox: Self-Esteem Striving, Immortality Ideologies, and Human Response to Climate Change). A series of studies by psychologists Tom Pyszczynski, Sheldon Solomon and Jeff Greenberg "found clear evidence that evoking people's fear of death made them more defensive of their world view, more hostile to foreigners, more willing to lash out violently at people of different political or religious beliefs and more drawn to charismatic leaders." (See also this discussion of fear and the environmental movement.)

Ernest Becker once said, "To live fully is to live with an awareness of the rumble of terror that underlies everything." The Ernest Becker Foundation (EBF) "seeks to illuminate how the unconscious denial of death and mortality profoundly influences human behavior, giving rise to acts of hate and violence as well as noble, altruistic striving." Indeed, the EBF has a conference coming up entitled Understanding the Violence of Climate Change (Seattle, October 21-23, 2011), which will "explore the close correlation of the denial of climate change to the denial of death."

Here's the question, then. If those who deny, question or ignore the climate change emergency are afraid of death, do those who are fighting to safeguard the future of life on Earth face their own mortality with acceptance or courage? Are climate activists those who have made peace with the idea of dying?

Let me tell you a story. One Sunday, almost 20 years ago, I woke up and told my husband we needed to take a drive. (This is something we never did, and something I never did as a child — my father was a travelling salesman, so taking a Sunday drive was something we just didn't do.)

Because I was so sure I had to do this, my husband joined me to see what it was all about. (I had no clue at the time.) We drove south out of town for quite a ways until I shouted, "Turn left here!" Again we drove for quite a ways until we came to a lovely little campground by a pretty little lake. "This is it," I said. I wandered about in the campground and sat by the lake until I realized this wasn't the right place.

I decided to cross the road, and started bushwacking up a wooded hill through trees and leaves and branches. My husband was following his own path now, so I was alone. I kept wondering what I was there for, what I was going to find.... And then it happened. Something caught my attention, and as I looked over my shoulder, I saw myself — my dead body — lying next to a log in a bed of moss.

A wondrous sense of serenity came over me as I realized that my death will be a gift to the Earth, a returning to my Mother. In that instant, I was no longer afraid of my mortality, knowing deeply and calmly that death is not an end but a new beginning in the cycle of life.

Perhaps that sounds cliché (not to mention sudden) but I made my peace with the idea of becoming compost after I die. And now I fight to protect all life (not just my own) — the very miracle of life — on this planet.

Which has me wondering ... are all climate activists at peace with their own death, and therefore able to to fight for the right of others to live?

p.s. No, that's not me. (I wish!) It's a beautiful photo by Scott Fitzhume from Pixdaus.

2 Days to Copenhagen - Alarmist versus Alarming: What Legacy Are We Choosing?

Alarmist: someone who is considered to be exaggerating a danger and so causing needless worry or panic.

Well, I don't consider myself to be exaggerating the dangers of continued global warming and climate disruption. Only precious time will tell, of course, and I am now reduced to hoping beyond all hope that I (along with thousands of climate scientists) am wrong. Better me than the deniers, cuz if they're wrong, we're up that famous river without a paddle — and no time to save ourselves before we head into the abyss.

So, let's pray that the laws of physics go wonky on us, or that the Americans and Chinese decide to go renewable (dragging most of the rest of us with them) next year, or that all the deniers, skeptics, ignorers and delayers suddenly see the light (or the climate chaos beyond their own backyards) and get all their cronies into action.

*****

Versus alarming. Who's to judge? All our descendants. All future generations. Posterity. Wanna talk about going to heaven or going to hell? Whether you believe in those concepts or not (personally, I've made my peace with becoming compost), I've come to believe that we make our heaven or our hell right here on Earth — and if there's a higher power overseeing this whole grand experiment, then you'd better believe that we are judged by what we leave behind as our legacy: a sort of intergenerational golden rule.

*****

By the way, see that pretty coloured map at the top of this post? It spells the end of agriculture (which spells the end of us, since we're now an agricultural species). It's the first time that climate modellers have been able to predict regional temperature increases given a globally averaged temperature increase. For this map, the global increase is 4º Celsius above the average temperature in 1890.

Why 4ºC when everyone is saying we have to stay below a 2ºC warming? Here's the rationale for a September 2009 conference at Oxford called the Four Degrees and Beyond International Climate Conference:

"Despite 17 years of negotiations since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise. Since 2000 the rates of annual emissions growth have increased at rates at the upper end of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] scenarios, presenting the global community with a stark challenge: either instigate an immediate and radical reversal in existing emission trends or accept global temperature rises well beyond 4°.

"The immediacy and scale of the reductions necessary to avoid anything below 4°C, and indeed the human and ecosystem implications of living with 4°C, are beyond anything we have been prepared to countenance. Understanding the implications of 4°C and higher temperatures is essential ...."

So please note that with a global average increase of "only" 4º Celsius (it just doesn't sound like much at all, I know, but consider that the Arctic's permafrost is already thawing with an increase of only 0.78ºC), all the bread baskets of the world — all the prime agricultural areas — will increase 6 to 12 degrees Celsius (yellow to red regions).

Holy flying mother of pearl! If a temperature increase of a measly .78ºC is thawing the permafrost, melting the Arctic summer sea ice (our summer "air conditioner"), destabilizing methane hydrates (those pesky frozen methane deposits along our continental shelves that could move us into runaway global heating if they continue emitting into the atmosphere), acidifying the oceans, killing the coral reefs, desertifying vast swaths of land around the world, causing worse droughts, floods and famines, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. (trying to make a point there), then 6 to 12ºC increases are going to be downright deadly — indeed, exterminatious (just made that word up).

We won't be able to grow food, our water sources (for drinking and irrigation) will dry up, and the heat waves will kill our populations off slowly if nothing else does. How much more do the deniers et al need to see and hear before they start to give a damn for their children's future?

So go ahead: how would you vote? Alarmist or alarming? Remember that it's only alarmist if it's not true. And if we're not sure (and there's still perhaps time for miracles), then surely for the sake of our children and grandchildren, the precautionary principle — rather than our pocketbooks — should be what motivates our actions and choices.

*****

You see, we're already experiencing catastrophic climate changes and we've only reached +0.78ºC. This seemingly small temperature increase could tip us into runaway global heating any time now. Why in heaven's name would we want to "wait and see" and not alarm people when the situation is downright alarming? Be afraid! This is scary!

We need to cut our emissions to virtually zero FAST if we want to ensure a future for life on Earth. Let's have no more talk of 2ºC and 4ºC and 2050 and 2100. Let's get to ZERO as quickly as possible, because life depends on it.

Zero carbon emissions is a legacy worth leaving.

12 Days to Copenhagen - There's Good Laziness and Then There's Deadly Laziness

If you're the kind of lazy person who sits around watching the grass grow in the yard (or the dust settle on your furniture, depending on the season), then that's a good kind of laziness. You're not burning any fossil fuels, you're not hurting anyone. I commend and encourage that type of laziness. More people should stay put and do nothing more often. Or maybe do a jigsaw puzzle. Personally, I'd much rather play with my hair and think about life than work any day!

But there's another type of laziness that is dooming the future, and that's the laziness of climate change deniers, skeptics, ignorers and delayers. These people are too lazy to learn, too lazy to research, too lazy to find out for themselves, too lazy to ever change their tune (by gawd, they are boring!), and too lazy to give a damn about their children's future.

They just keep pushing the same (usually partisan) stuff. They lack imagination. They never seem to learn anything new. They'll glom onto "same old same old" stuff that suits their purpose (which usually has to do with maintaining a status quo that maintains their wealth and/or comfort and/or worldview), but they don't offer anything thoughtful or compassionate or wise. I read their schlock from time to time, then tear myself away from doing nothing to research their claims (haven't found one to be correct yet). Why can't they do the same?

Too blinkin' lazy. Too lazy to do the research. Too lazy to learn the basic physics. Too lazy to learn how people in other parts of the world are already being impacted. (Google "Carteret Islands + climate change" — can you say climate refugees?) Too lazy to imagine that money might not be everyone's motivation. Too lazy to feel any compassion for the children. (It's not easy to feel deeply.)

Just when you wish they were rocking away in their La-Z-Boy™ recliners, with their children or grandchildren on their knees, they rev themselves up for a little hacking and cherry picking, obfuscating and misleading. Why do they have the energy for that, but no energy for safeguarding their children's future?

It's enough to send me back to watching the dust gather.

29 Days - Where are the Elders' Voices?

I have found myself wondering a lot lately where the "elders" are in the fight to safeguard the future from climate chaos.

I know the Raging Grannies are out there, singing their hearts out, bless them. I know the American Legion passed a resolution this past summer to urge the American President and Congress "to establish a worldwide plan to significantly reduce carbon-based emissions" (bless them, too) (although they misguidedly "whereas-ed" it by saying "the United States based its refusal of the Kyoto Protocol on inconsistent provisions within the protocol that unfairly burdened the United States with stricter prohibitions than other developed [sic] nations including China, Russia, and India" as though they've been to China and India and didn't see the tiny, tiny carbon footprint of millions and millions and millions of Chinese and Indian people).

It turns out that George Monbiot — and the Pew Research Center in the US — also noticed that anti-global warming/climate change "beliefs" seem to be strongly influenced by age. "The Pew report found that people over 65 are much more likely than the rest of the population to deny that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming, that it's caused by humans, or that it's a serious problem. This chimes with my own experience. Almost all my fiercest arguments over climate change, both in print and in person, have been with people in their 60s or 70s. Why might this be?" asks Monbiot.

My husband has greying hair, and he gives up to 18 hours a day to this issue. But it does seem as though the majority of deniers, skeptics, delayers or just plain "ignorers" are senior citizens. An environmental campaigner told me recently of her encounters with seniors ("It has been so surprising how many people say, 'Oh, I am too old.' Seriously? To me it sounds like they are saying, 'I am done, I support nothing new, I live in my safe little box and do not care to think of anything else.' It blows my mind," my friend told me).

And I remember clearly a visiting grandfather, at the school to pick up his grandson, who started chatting with me while I was putting a climate change bulletin board up in the hallway. "Ah well," he concluded our conversation, "it's not my problem."

It's not your problem? It's not YOUR problem? With any due respect, Sir, let me tell you why it is, indeed, your problem.

1. Your generation had a huge hand in creating this problem.

2. Yours is the wealthiest generation in history, and you probably made your wealth, at least in part, by helping to create this problem. For several decades, your exploitation of the Earth was ceaseless.

3. Those of your generation who can afford it continue to shop, fly and travel with no thought to the future — just a big fat "we're entitled to it" attitude. (Being able to afford to do something does not give you the moral right to do it.)

4. Your children and your grandchildren are your descendants — and their future is threatened by this problem.

5. If you don't die soon, your future is also threatened. Climate disruption is already impacting senior citizens (and their children and grandchildren) in many regions of the world.

If the Arctic summer sea ice disappears as early as now predicted, then expect heat waves, droughts, wildfires and crop failures in the northern hemisphere — and in your lifetime! And that will definitely be your problem.

The problem seems so big, so potentially overwhelming, doesn't it? (I say "potentially" because it is not yet overwhelming those of us in the developed world.)

But here's the thing ... and here's where you come in. Two huge solutions are small, quick and easy!!

1. Paint your roof white, to replace the disappearing 2.5 million square miles of albedo — the heat-reflecting effect of white ice and snow — in the Arctic. No less an expert than Steven Chu, US Secretary of Energy, explains that painting our roofs white would be the equivalent of taking all the cars in the world off the road for 11 years. The simple act of painting roofs white, he says, could have a dramatic impact on the amount of energy used to keep buildings comfortable, as well as directly offsetting global warming by increasing the reflectivity of the Earth.

2. Stop eating meat — for the sake of our children and grandchildren (and for your own sake, too ... a plant-based diet is better for you and for the planet).

That's it. Sure, stay home more often. Quit flitting about the planet. But your generation has the power and the advantage of money and time — and these two quick simple solutions are easily within your grasp. Please do them.

Then spread the word. At the Legion, your favourite coffee shop or pub, the seniors' centre, your next card party. Just talk about it. Talk about what you've done and why — because you love your kids and grandkids and want to take responsibility for your part in the mess the world's in, and you've decided to start thinking like an ancestor. Talking about the actions you've taken is the easiest thing you can do to help save the future.

44 Days to Copenhagen - FIRE!

It used to be, when there was a fire, someone shouted "Fire!" (And people listened. And took action. Immediately. Grab your kid and run kind of immediately.)

Nowadays, there's fire but instead of shouting to save people's lives, everyone seems to think they have to figure out what to say and how to say it. Greenpeace held a slogan contest recently — save the world in six words max. A Canadian environmental group just commissioned a study to find out the best "frame" to use to shout "Fire!" Someone on a listserve is wondering about the "science" in a new denier movie.

A friend told me by email today, "Teach, don't shout." The irony is, I WASN'T EVEN SHOUTING! And besides, once the fire is blazing is not the time to do fire safety education. (She also calls me a Cassandra — of Trojan Horse fame. Cassandra did not come to a good end, even though she was right all along, which I find kind of disturbing.)

It broke my spirit. I'm played out and it's not even October 24 yet (International Day of Climate Action). I am so glad that I decided on a lament and a learn-in tomorrow, rather than a celebration. What are people celebrating? That we haven't completely ruined the future yet?

I guess ignorance truly is bliss. There are days that I curse this knowing. Though in the case of global climate change, Goethe is right:

"There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action."