The Climate in Emergency

A weekly blog on science, news, and ideas related to climate change


Leave a comment

Giving Ground to Climate?

Last week, I attended a presentation on climate change and the Maine coast. In general, it was an excellent presentation, but since I’m going to be somewhat critical of it here, I will not draw attention to the presenter or her employer.

There was some information in the presentation on climate science (which I’ll work into other posts), but most of the emphasis was on communication—the idea being that instead of telling people scary, alarmist stories about climate disasters, it makes more sense to give them tools to help with mitigation and leave it up to them whether to use those tools. No persuasion, in other words, and no education that might hint at persuasion. Apparently people feel more respected and less overwhelmed this way, and some start to believe climate change is real on their own, eventually.

“This is a long game,” said the presenter.

That’s when I started to boil over. I mean, we have no time for long games, for one thing, and the disaster stuff isn’t alarmism, it’s just an alarm. Did you know some researchers are pushing to add an extra class to the hurricane rating system, to account for the stronger storms that seem to be the new normal? It’s alarming. I’m alarmed. Let’s face facts, people.

Of course, there’s the old question—do you want to be right or do you want to be effective? In other words, let go of the need to win the argument, and keep your eye on the prize. There is a lot to be said for gentle non-confrontation, for respect of other people’s sovereignty and dignity…not many people can really hear you if you’re shrieking at them, even if the things you’re shrieking happen to be 100% correct and a perfectly understandable thing to shriek about.

She says her method is getting results, and that’s exactly why I held my piece in the presentation, and why I’m not identifying her or her organization right now. I don’t want to get in her way.

But at the same time, it’s worth considering that climate denial is not a natural phenomenon, not a simple matter of people needing to hear the message in a gentle and accessible way. No, climate denial is deliberately manufactured, which is why is it is virtually non-existent in countries that don’t speak English and therefore don’t get the propaganda. So, clearly the old-style environmentalist messaging works, it did work, and it worked so well that people with a different message started pushing back—quite effectively. The lesson isn’t to abandon persuasion, it’s to get better at it, because we’re not the only persuaders out here.

The other thing I think about is The Letter from Birmingham Jail, in which Dr. King famously calls white liberals out for telling black people to be less assertive in their demands for freedom and justice, as if white people might concede if only black people asked more nicely. That anyone, anywhere, achieves justice by becoming less strident about asking for it is a crock when it comes to racism, and it’s a crock when it comes to climate change, too—which, make no mistake, is also a matter of justice. Climate change is landing on the heads of the poor and the marginalized, not on those who make bank on the industrial processes that put us in this mess.

Climate denial did not become a political force because we were too strident, and it will not go away if we cease being strident. It will simply win.

What we need to do is to become smarter and more strategic in our stridency.

Yes, of course, be respectful. Ordinary people who don’t know whether climate change is real are not the enemy, and should not be treated as such. Offer solutions to problems people have, not the problems they don’t have or don’t think they have. Listen, learn, and acknowledge the importance of the collateral issues, such as race, class, and ethnicity, that can prime a person to reject a message for reasons that seem irrelevant but aren’t. Be accessible. Be empowering. Do everything and anything that experience and social science tell us might work.

But don’t take your eye off the prize.

Don’t cede ground lightly or without paying attention to the strategic value of that ground.

And don’t let your adversaries define the terms of either engagement or retreat.

For example, if you’re speaking to a group that may include climate skeptics, sure, go ahead and use some tact. Put the emphasis on issues you can agree on. Acknowledge their right and ability to make up their own mind. But do not refer to scientific controversy over what is causing climate change, because there is none. You’d just be repeating someone else’s lie. That’s an example of ceding ground without paying attention to its value—you have ceded the truth, and you’ve given your adversary the power to redefine consensus reality as needed. Do not do that.

Likewise, the suggestion that we focus only on offering tools to help with mitigation concerns me because it does nothing whatever for the fight at the ballot box—which is where the end game we’re looking at will play out. We need pro-climate government leadership, or we simply aren’t going to win this thing.

How very convenient.

I’m being strident at the moment. I’m being slightly impolitic, perhaps. But I’m deliberately speaking to the converted right now, and not to anyone else:

Yes, definitely, use whatever gentle message works for your corner of the issue, for your own specific campaign. No one can work on all fronts simultaneously, anyway. But figure out a way to be gentle and tactful without spreading climate-denier propaganda yourself and without abandoning the fight to get the climate-sane leadership we so desperately need.

Advertisements


Leave a comment

Looking for–and Not Finding–Marches

If the planned Second Science March occurred, it did so utterly without fanfare.

I ended up not going, for various logistical reasons. I have a few friends who mentioned making the same decision for similar reasons. I don’t know anybody who went. I saw no mention of it on the news. I have just now done an internet search for “science march,” and the top page of results were all either sites planning the march or commenting on last year’s march. ZERO reporting on this year’s march.

Did it occur? Did anybody show up? Like the tree falling unheard in the forest, a march nobody noticed may indeed make a sound, but if nobody notices it might as well be silent because nobody cares.

In the process of looking for marches two weeks ago, I found a number of upcoming events, but I also learned that the organizers of the Second Science March were deliberately down-playing the march itself, and instead putting their focus on activism and advocacy. So, there was a reason why nobody heard about the march in time to make arrangements to go, and nobody reported on the marches when they happened–the organizers wanted it that way. I do not understand this strategy. Why expend money and effort planning a march, but then doom it to fail?

Do these people even want to succeed?

Last year’s Science March was a great deal of fun. I was disappointed not to be able to do it again. I’m also very concerned that climate issues (a subset of the issues addressed by the Science March) are falling out of the media again. For a while, there, news shows were starting to take the issue seriously, since it was obvious–from the marches–that people care. Now? Not so much.

It’s hard to care about something if nobody acts like it matters. It’s hard to know what others care about it if you never hear from them. If climate change does not make the news, the rest of us are left feeling very alone.

It’s hard to believe the people who benefit from climate denial are unaware of this.

 

I must apologize for not posting last week. There was a family emergency–now resolved–that made everything difficult.


1 Comment

Looking for Marches

I admit I got spoiled.

For a while, there, information about political demonstrations simply came to be on Facebook. Friends posted announcements, as did groups I had signed up for. All I had to do was decide which marches I wanted to go on. Last year sometime, the flow of information stopped. I don’t know why it stopped, and I wasn’t clearly aware that it had stopped at the time. It was like the beginning of a drought, when you slowly, belatedly realize that it’s really been a long time now since it rained.

As I’ve mentioned, I was also badly distracted by a protracted family emergency. I had no emotional energy left over for political engagement, however necessary or noble, let alone for research into how to politically engage. So I took much longer to respond to the situation than I might have–and when I did respond I did so slowly, vaguely, without commitment.

I posted comments to various groups–has anyone heard about any marches or rallies coming up for the next few months? No one responded. Months went by. I asked again. I put off checking back on my messages for months. I saw major demonstrations on the news that I had known nothing about.

I have more energy now. I’m sleeping better. I’m more awake. And it suddenly occurred to me this week that  this is not a case of just vaguely not hearing much news lately. Facebook, as we all probably know by now, is not a passive medium, like some online equivalent of a community cork board. Instead, the service actively prioritizes what we see and what we don’t based on an ever-changing and somewhat mysterious algorithm. When I don’t see messages from one or another friend but my husband does see those messages, or the other way around, I know the algorithm is involved. When a message of mine seems to disappear down a dark well, or, alternatively, suddenly gets attention from everybody, I know the algorithm is likely involved. At long last, the conclusion became inescapable:

Facebook’s algorithm must no longer favor the kind of political information I want to see.

The idea feels creepy, Orwellian, controlling. It isn’t, necessarily. It’s possible Facebook is, in fact, trying to impede the flow of propaganda and trollwork and my marches and petitions are collateral damage. It’s also possible that fewer of my friends have been “liking” these posts, perhaps being tired of politics, so the algorithm isn’t showing them as widely. But regardless of why, it’s time to be more proactive.

So, I spent today looking around online and found a number of interesting events–a Science March later this week, a youth-led climate march in June, and another climate rally in September. I posted them here on my page. I also posted several civil-rights-related events, a tax protest, and an anti-gun violence event. While this site is focused on climate change only, I also post information on other issues that may interest visitors. Among other reasons, if I expect devotees of other issues to show up for my favorite cause, I’d better show up for theirs.

There is a danger, here. I was talking to my friend, Zeke, last night, and he expressed concern, not for the first time, with the political and philosophical bubbles we tend to confine ourselves within. He is familiar with the fact that politically conservative hunters do a lot of environmental conservation work, yet are often socially excluded from the politically liberal environmental movement. That’s bad for the planet because it turns potential allies against each other. The only way to build effective coalitions is to form alliances with people we don’t completely agree with. That gets difficult when the people who do agree with each other spend a lot of their time at political rallies shouting about their common passions and their shared antipathy to everything else.

It’s true that I don’t post events for all issues on my site–I wouldn’t post a clearly racist demonstration for example, although some racists may be conservationists. It’s a line that has to be drawn somewhere, clearly, but where?

I’m not sure frankly.

Finding the information wasn’t easy. My second query to Facebook groups yielded surprisingly little. Visits to the websites of the organizations that often sponsor marches yielded nothing, either. The pages were poorly organized and out of date, a hodge-podge of notices and calls-to-action for events and campaigns over the past three years.

Finally I resorted to internet searches for “climate protest 2018” and “climate demonstration 2018.” I tried “climate march” first, but that tended to yield climate-related events in March. But I got enough that I likely have a full picture, at least for Washington DC.

The way I see it, it’s time to revert to a variation of old-fashioned social networking–I look up the information I want and then share it–individually, by email, PM, or tagging people–with people I think may be interested. Other people do the same. Pass it on.

 


Leave a comment

For Our Lives

Many years ago, I was on a crew doing fuels reduction cutting in the urban-wilderness interface. In plain English, that means there were about ten of us who would go to neighborhoods that butted up against forests, and we’d thin out the trees using chainsaws and also cut away dead branches near the ground. This was in Arizona, in an area that was once grassy, with few, well-spaced trees, but over-grazing and then fire suppression allowed trees to grow more densely than they had previously. As a result, that part of Arizona, which used to have frequent, low-intensity grass fires, now has rare but very dangerous and damaging forest fires. The idea is that by thinning out the trees and then doing controlled burns, the more dangerous fires can be prevented. It seems to work, and of course they prioritize tracts of land near houses and such.

Anyway, one of the men on my crew–I forget his name, now–was beautiful. I don’t mean I was especially attracted to him (though I can see how others might be), I mean that he looked good in a way more common among women, although he was not at all feminine in affect. He had a very thin build and long, thick, black hair. And one day he returned to headquarters with a story.

He had been busy cutting, when a woman came out of her nearby house, saw him, and shouted “GIRL POWER!!!”

Obviously, from a distance, and while wearing several layers of protective equipment, he had looked to her like a woman running a chainsaw. She was delighted and impressed. Of course, there WERE several women running chainsaws in the vicinity, but none were in her field of vision, only him.

Unable to have a real conversation under the circumstances, the man simply pumped his fist. Yes, girl power, women on chainsaws! Yee-haw!

“I didn’t want to disagree,” he later explained.

Watching teenagers taking to the streets for gun control, I have a very similar reaction. As with that man busy running a noisy and dangerous chainsaw, I find my response largely limited by circumstance to a binary choice between approval and disapproval. And I don’t want to disagree–schools should be safe places, and young people should be supported in political involvement. And yet these people are missing something.

As I’ve covered elsewhere in this blog, climate change is a greater threat to these kids’ future than school shootings are, and the fossil fuel industry is a greater threat to American democracy than the gun lobby is, so why aren’t we taking to the streets to do something about it? Why is the youth movement rising in one place but not the other?

Both could happen at once, of course, it’s just that they aren’t, and the more I see the power of the gun safety movement, the more mystified I am that environmentalists seem to be twiddling their thumbs. Massive protest can still accomplish something, so what is the hold-up? I am, in fact, beginning to wonder if social media is being used deliberately to interfere with action on climate change.

Of course, it may just be that climate change, with its complex patterns of varying risk, just doesn’t seem as real, as important, as a spray of bullets.

Fortunately, the party of the NRA happens to also be the party of climate deniers, so if the March for Our Lives sweeps gun advocates out of office, they could switch the balance of power on climate, too. Unfortunately, that’s not a forgone conclusion.

As I’ve explained here before, a majority of Americans understand climate change is real and want something done about it, but few consider silence on the issue a deal-breaker for  candidate. But for the minority of climate skeptics and deniers, climate action is a deal-breaker.  The political calculus is clear; ignore climate change, take a stand on a couple of other liberal issues, and win. That is why we’ve been treading water on the issue for a generation while the world begins to burn.

Getting committed climate deniers out of office is not necessarily the same thing as getting climate activists in. We need candidates who are committed to climate action for its own sake, not for political reasons. How do we find them, especially given that they might not campaign on the issue?

Perhaps getting behind the rising young people is one half of a winning strategy for climate–and the other half is getting behind candidates of color. White Americans lag behind other groups in taking climate seriously, so, statistically speaking, black and brown lawmakers are more likely to be climate sane than white lawmakers who campaign on similar platforms. And there are all sorts of reasons to support candidates of color anyway.

If environmentalists will not take to the streets, perhaps we can make some progress by getting behind those who will.

 


Leave a comment

A Shot in the Dark

It’s been an interesting week in the news. My nation’s most recent mass shooting incident triggered the beginnings of a promising student protest movement.  The release of the groundbreaking superhero comic, Black Panther, spoke to America’s “original sin” in a way no other movie ever has. Temperatures in the Mid-Atlantic region are predicted to hit thirty degrees above normal, breaking records set…last year. The prediction is similar for the entire Eastern US, including the Lower Hudson Valley and Boston. And some states are making serious attempts to remove climate change from required school curricula.

I am very glad that young people are organizing to protect their lives in school. The issue needs attention, and the political experience they gain now will make them better citizens. I am very glad that there is now a very popular movie about brilliant and powerful black people and all of the other things Black Panther is about. It’s a rare mainstream acknowledgement of some important truths. Plus, I just saw the movie and it’s fantastic.

But where is climate change in all of this? Climate change threatens the lives of school children. Climate change is one of the agents by which the disenfranchised are abused. And I’m not hearing anyone talking about it. For a while there, climate change was getting on people’s radar. Political demonstrations, cultural references, frequent news coverage….It all seems to be backing off.

Is something being  silenced?


Leave a comment

Strange Priorities

Computer problems are minimizing my post this week, sadly, but….Can I just take a moment to acknowledge that the city council of Ocean City, Maryland, recently voted to object to any wind turbines being built offshore where they can be seen from the beach. They worry that the “eyesore” could hurt the tourism economy. The city populace, in contrast, supports the wind farm, by and large. The whole thing is very weird. It’s all over the news. And, meanwhile, how much of a threat is the possibility of oil and gas exploration offshore, which we mostly don’t hear about?

Which is more serious?


1 Comment

BOEM, Again

Remember the BOEM scoping process from a few years ago?

Basically, every five years, the Federal government decides which Federal waters will be available for oil and gas exploration. The process is supervised by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM, and is somewhat drawn out. In the beginning, all areas that will be considered are included in a proposed map, and public and expert comment is sought. Based on those comments, some areas may be removed from consideration, before the creation of another map and another round of comments. At each stage, the area potentially available to oil and gas extraction can grow smaller, but never bigger. When the final plan comes out, energy companies can lease small areas within those regions made available under the plan, but not every square mile within those regions is ever offered for lease, and not every possible lease is ever exploited. Although BOEM explicitly allows and facilitates oil and gas exploitation, its job is to make sure that such exploitation happens in as safe, as environmentally responsible, and as fair a way as possible.

As possible given the scale of oil and gas exploitation demanded by the economic and political will of the American people.

That last is the key–although BOEM’s job is to say “yes” to people who really should not be said “yes” to, that approval has already been issued by many other entities, including the collective weight of all the American people who buy petroleum products. BOEM’s job is to say a negotiated “yes,” to minimize harm. The BOEM personnel I’ve spoken to have all seemed friendly, helpful, sincere, and genuinely interested in environmental values and fair due process. They depend on us to give them the political cover they need to do the right thing, and they want to help us provide that cover.

BOEM is not our enemy.

Two years ago, parts of the Atlantic were initially considered for exploration, a problem, both because even the safest practices do not reduce the risk of an oil spill to zero, and because the process of locating oil and gas deposits involves sonic testing that is so loud it can kill marine life that happens to be in the way. A lot of us organized and gave public comment, passed local resolutions, and even lobbied Congress. And it worked. Most of the areas originally under consideration, including the entire Atlantic, were removed from the plan. We won! Yay!

And then Present Trump decided to start the whole process over again.

Starting Over

A new presidential administration has the option to re-examine certain decisions of its predecessor, including which areas are available for oil and gas exploitation. Mr. Trump has exercised this option, so we have to go over all of it again.

The obvious motivation for the Trump Administration to re-start the process is a desire to open up more seabed to resource extraction, especially since now, for the first time, almost all American Federal waters are under consideration. But if the process goes as it should, the results should be close to the same as they were last time–most areas should again be excluded.

But even if we win this time, too, there is still a problem, because this process requires quite a lot of work on the part of BOEM personnel–and while they are working on collecting and analyzing comments and making recommendations, they are not doing other things. While discussing the matter with BOEM personnel at a public outreach meeting yesterday, I asked what these other duties are.

Turns out, when not wrangling public comments, many BOEM personnel are involved in conducting environmental impact assessments, identifying gaps in the scientific knowledge used for those assessments, and hiring scientists to fill those gaps. Right now, those duties are still being carried out, but by fewer people. To some extent, this temporary personnel reassignment slows research for some months. More seriously, few people doing the work means fewer minds available to figure out how to solve problems and how to ask research questions.

Do you suppose interfering with research in this way could be the point of this massive do-over?

What to Do?

This is a call to action. Although not directly related to climate change, there are a lot of indirect connection, as I’ve described in previous posts.

The action is fairly simple and user-friendly–make a comment.Obviously this especially addressed to you if you live in the US somewhere coastal, but if you simply care about these areas, please get involved. And remember, we’re talking about almost the entire US coastline and adjacent offshore waters and all the animals and human economic activity (tourism, seafood, etc.) that depend on them.

Feel free to read my earlier posts (like this one) for more information, the issue and the process haven’t changed. There are a number of organizations that have also agreed to provide talking points and links; I’ll update this post when they do so. You can also go to BOEM’s website for more information on the process, a virtual version of the public informational meetings BOEM is holding, as well as how to comment.

BOEM personnel suggest that your comment involve more than “please don’t drill off my beach.” If you have any detailed information on ecological vulnerabilities of specific oceanic areas and coastlines, give those details. If you or someone you know has a strong personal connection to a given area, or if your livelihood depends on the water in some way, say so, and provide details, numbers, data, stories.

Here’s the link to comment again–you have until March 9th.