Comments on: Climate Change: The Wrong Top Priority for Environmentalists and Conservation Professionals

By: Another World Is Possible

Another World Is Possible — Mon, 10 Feb 2014 01:52:56 +0000

Economic growth is a root level problem – agreed. Though it is not the only belief in the “religion” of money that is problematic. What I struggle to understand however, is that we have the ability to shift in mutli-faceted ways such that we can have a steady state economy, clean air, clean water, healthy soil, free time (less working hours) for all nearly as easily as we made the shift from 8 track players to iPhones. Yet somehow we persist in perceiving the necessary shifts – as postponeable sacrifice instead of as grand opportunities for a better life.

Let’s take just one small part of our daily experience – the smell – just imagine how different things will smell once we make the shift off fossil fuels. Why is just that not an excellent selling point for where we need to be headed? Don’t even need to talk about asthma rates or pollution or any of that – think more about the positive selling points. What sells air freshener? People like fresh air.

Besides sex, what sells? Less work, more fun, easier, more beautiful, looks great, tastes good, etc. etc. Why not learn from economic growth and it’s biggest tool – marketing in all its forms?

All the fear mongering without concrete action steps has not helped us deal with climate change. Perhaps a well-articulated and oft-repeated vision of a post-fossil fuel steady state would.

By: bruce ritchie

bruce ritchie — Sat, 08 Feb 2014 22:46:51 +0000

As long as we are spectators we are doomed. When we each find the DIY attitude required to turn our yards into gardens, and begin to notice and interact with the producers of our locale, then we are well on the way toward seeing some of the silliest of the global commerce dry up. Perhaps it requires that we begin to question the unseen forces of “illth” long left out of our consumer calculations. Seems like the “climate change” we should focus on is the change from “consumer” to active citizen and do-it-yourselfer making wiser choices to simplify and optimize our lives. Our new found balance could inform our job choices too. When most of our memberships are about ridesharing, and cohousing or sweating together in a garden, then we will have turned our abstract ideas into concrete reality. At that point our “consumer” behaviour will be wiser and less frequent. Until then, we are just isolated individuals manipulated by the “system” of our conspicuous consumption.

By: Robert Lawrence

Robert Lawrence — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:31:04 +0000

I agree that addressing economic growth is the cause behind climate change and all of the other things conservationists and environmentalists are working towards. However, I am convinced that it is the whole decision making process that needs to be addressed. Hear in Australia we have the same problem as in the US. Government is driven by big business and the fossil fuel industry in particular. We are governed by perceptions and miss-information. We need to demand governance based on information and thorough consideration of the options. The future needs to be brought into consideration rather than governing for the next term in office. I don’t know how to do it. My experience from social media is that activists are just stuck on their individual issues.

I would add, for Mary Logan, that questioning Bill McKibben’s support of nuclear energy, is an example of an opinion formed from miss-information. Instead of questioning the motives of those who support a viable alternative to fossil fuels, it would be better to get informed about the issue.

By: David Atcheson

David Atcheson — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 01:05:56 +0000

A provocative post and insightful commentary. What hasn’t yet appeared in this thread is the role of money, what some have called the “operating system” of our economies. Our national and global money systems have a built-in growth imperative and lead to ever greater economic inequality as money flows fastest to those who have the most. There are alternatives, such as mutual credit clearing systems, and experience with these systems on various scales is steadily growing. The current operating system will surely fail since perpetual growth is a physical impossibility. How far will we have pushed the climate system toward the tipping point by then? And to what extent will we have expanded alternative exchange systems to accommodate refugees from the old system? See also https://www.community-exchange.org/docs/show.asp?doc=operatingsystem.html and http://beyondmoney.net/.

By: Justice Saint Rain

Justice Saint Rain — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 03:46:22 +0000

Sean Streiff’s last sentence deserves more attention. The perceived need for perpetual growth is fed by the fact that the top 1% siphon wealth out of the system, so the system has to grow in order to maintain the status quo. Convincing people that growth is bad will be even harder than convincing them that global warming is real unless they first understand that they can have a decent standard of living WITHOUT growth, but only if the people at the top stop taking more than their fair share. “Consumerism” is just a tool for diverting more and more resources to the people making a profit. Right now, people are working harder and harder just to stand still. They fear that without growth, they will have less and less. If we reduce inequality (not eliminate it entirely) then people can work less, consume less, but have more of what they need and be happier.

By: Morten Lambertsen

Morten Lambertsen — Tue, 28 Jan 2014 21:27:47 +0000

Thank you, brilliant as usual. But to some extent it might also work the other way around, that general climate concerns actually leads to a discussion of an agenda involving broader sustainability issues and consumption/economy?

By: Mary Logan

Mary Logan — Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:16:19 +0000

“And what about all the regular old environmental issues we felt were so urgent before we prioritized climate change? Like clean air and water, wildlife conservation, wilderness preservation, soil conservation, invasive species, Superfund, the ozone layer, green space, threatened and endangered species, environmental quality and ecological integrity at large? We were already scrambling for scraps of funding for these issues, and now the collective scraps have been taken away to feed all the climate change research, modeling, planning, and a heavy load of education and outreach.”

Thank you for this, Brian. Of all the many ways that prioritizing climate change plays into the agenda of Big Business, I think the one you described above is the sneakiest. Big Business is telling you, “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain–watch those weather special effects, something everyone can relate to and have an opinion on, but that is not a real threat any time in the near future.” That way, we can subvert any real concerns about linking environmental degradation and growth. With devious creativity, they’ve got people like Bill McKibben promoting nuclear for GE–who needs advertisements?

By: Sean Streiff

Sean Streiff — Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:12:57 +0000

Brian, I agree with much that you say here. But I think you are ignoring the extent to which fighting climate change and reducing economic growth are complementary goals. In the short term, changing the character of our consumption may offer greater benefit then reducing the level of consumption. I also don’t think you give sufficient consideration to the various forces that militate against reducing consumption. The first of these might be simple inertia or habit. Then there are more active cultural forces, such as “the American dream” and the denigration of doing with less as a ticket to the Stone Age, or at least an excuse for working less. Then of course there are powerful commercial forces acting on consumers, such as advertising for consumption and the availability of consumer debt. Perhaps most pernicious of all are the powerful commercial and financial actors who hold great sway over private and public activity at all levels of government and in all spheres of our society. SSE advocates need to explain how we can reduce overall consumption without asking people to suffer more than they’re willing to do. It seems to me that this requires talking about economic redistribution, and that’s a very tough sell!!

By: Wes Ernsberger

Wes Ernsberger — Tue, 28 Jan 2014 15:59:03 +0000

I agree with most of of what you have written. In particular, I agree that the notion of perpetual growth is the root problem and that climate change is just one of the manifestations of that. However, there is something special about climate change that you did not mention and which is the reason many of us prioritize it so high. Science has shown that the earth’s climate is inherently unstable because of the presence of several important positive feedback loops (albido changes due to ice/water balance and release of sequestered methane are two examples). Because of these feedbacks, we are at grave risk of passing a tipping point where the climate will shift into a new, very damaging, state and there is nothing we can do to reverse it. That creates a strong sense that effective action to combat climate change is urgently required: We are in a desperate fight against time.

By: Luis Gutierrez

Luis Gutierrez — Tue, 28 Jan 2014 15:51:40 +0000

Based on the latest IPCC reports, I think there is reason for concern, but “certainties” on either side of the issue are driven more by vested interests than scientific validity. Too much money is involved (on both sides!) and money tends to favor whatever is expedient in the short term. Agree, climate is not the problem. Consumerism is the problem.

Climate change issues ought to be considered in the context of many other issues of solidarity and sustainability. The overarching issue, and one that (I think) is indisputable, is that we are entering a new epoch in human history, the so-called “anthropocene,” in which humans now have the power to impact ecological and planetary systems in unpredictable ways.

This is not an issue that can be resolved by technological fixes or by tweaking the economy. A cultural evolution may be required, whereby humans overcome the mindset of domination and exploitation of natural resources (common to both capitalism and communism) as we come to recognize that balancing individual and social priorities is more desirable than individualist self-interest and blind faith in the “invisible hand” of the market.

Some form of steady-state economy makes sense in terms of physics and throughputs, but the big question is how to transition from here to there. Nobody really knows how this cultural adaptation process is going to work out. I hear Pope Francis is working on a new encyclical on human ecology. Hope he can provide some insights on how to proceed, individually and collectively.