Two sets of opinions about
our environment, the earth which makes our lives possible, are at war in our
country. The scientific set is alarmed about the mounting effects of human
activity on air, water, animal and plant life, and climate. As population and
consumption grow, and industrial methods of doing everything proliferate, the
earth has become unable to absorb the multiplying impact on its interlocking
natural systems. The pollution of our water supplies, the increasing ferocity
of storms, the warming of climate, the rising level of oceans, and the dying of
species are already negatively affecting people around the globe. Projections
of these trends into the near future predict severe problems for billions of
people.
The ignorant set of opinions
dismisses all evidence with stupid
arguments. “The earth’s climate was much warmer long ago.” Yes, it was,
before agriculture, before
human life emerged, before millions of people lived on the edge of the
oceans. “There is no scientific consensus.” Just a lie about the small number
of isolated cranks who put forward specious contentions based on made-up
evidence. “Computer models are unreliable.” You don’t need a computer to read a
thermometer or see how the projections from 10 years ago have already come
true. “The
end times are coming, so don’t worry about climate change.” Religious dogma
trumps science again.
Ignorant and stupid may be
understatements. The political forces which have argued against doing anything
to reduce our impact on the environment, and which now actively reverse
previous efforts to protect the earth, deliberately lie
about what has already happened. Republicans in Congress and the White House
know that temperatures are rising. But they prioritize their own ideological
short-term gains over the long-term prospects for our children and
grandchildren. Their rich donors believe that their money can protect them
against the disasters that will eventually befall the less wealthy, who have
always borne the brunt of human-caused environmental disasters. The ignorant,
stupid, dishonest set of opinions has been backed by billions
of ideological dollars for decades.
Against the torrent of
influence-buying, the willingness of ideologues like the Heartland Institute to
twist the truth, and the self-interest of venal politicians, the honesty and
empathy of someone like Greta
Thunberg, the Swedish teenager who just sailed across the Atlantic to urge
Americans toward bold action against climate change, stands little chance of
success. It appears that no amount of evidence, neither scientific articles nor
photographs of melting glaciers, can affect the deliberately ignorant.
The so-called age gap in
climate consciousness might appear to be a hopeful sign for the future. A Gallup
poll last year found that 70% of 18- to 34-year olds worry about global
warming, but only 63% of 35- to 54-year olds, and 55% of people 55 and older.
Nearly half of older Americans put themselves into the ignorant camp, not
believing that most scientists agree that global warming is occurring, that
global warming is caused by human activities, and that the effects of global
warming have already begun. Maybe the key is that only 29% of older Americans
think global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetime. As Louis XV
is supposed to have said, “Après moi le déluge.”
Politics has an even stronger
effect on beliefs about climate than age. The most ignorant Americans are older
Republicans, less than half of whom believe global warming is occurring,
and less than one-third of whom believe that most scientists agree about global
warming.
But young people are also not
that worried. Only
half believe that global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetimes,
which extend well past 2050, the nightmare date by which climate across the
globe will be unrecognizable.
Opposition to efforts to
ameliorate climate change comes not only from conservative politicians. A
couple in Missouri who wanted to install solar panels on their roof had to
fight for years with local politicians and neighbors who didn’t
like the look. In some classic cases of “not in my backyard”, people in the
most liberal places refuse to accept minor lifestyle changes. An attempt to
construct a wind farm off the shores of Nantucket Island near Cape Cod resulted
in years of controversy, litigation, documentaries, books, and polls, and was
eventually shelved. The most significant argument against the tall turbines 15
miles offshore from Nantucket was that they would spoil the view. A 2013 law
in Massachusetts that would have indexed the tax on gasoline to inflation was repealed
by popular vote the next year.
Although my family believes I
am a Luddite because of my reluctance to embrace cell phones, I blame their use
for some of our environmental problems. I am constantly amazed when I walk
around on a sunny day and most of the people I see are staring fixedly down at
a tiny screen. A flock of ducks flies overhead, trees wave in the breeze,
clouds march across the sky, but they earn not even a glance. The younger
generations are turning away from the natural world in favor of virtual
unreality. They may be watching videos of Greenland’s ice pack melting, but
they miss what is happening to their own environment.
There is much discussion of
the physical
dangers of using smart phones while walking. I am more concerned about the
intellectual danger of ignoring the physical environment during the short
periods when most people are outside.
Some scientists are worried
about the “human costs of alienation from the natural world”, which has been
labeled “nature
deficit disorder”. Biologists identify “plant
blindness” as one symptom, “the inability to see or notice the plants in
one’s own environment”. As our society has moved off the land into cities and
suburbs, we have distanced ourselves from the natural world. Now the lure of
rapidly changing images and instant communication distracts too many people
from the slow degradation of the earth on which we stand.
The pace of environmental
change is much faster than ever before, but slow in terms of human life span.
It is difficult to convince anyone to accept something now that they don’t like
in order to prevent a catastrophe decades away.
Looking down at our phones,
we won’t see the cliff ahead.
Steve Hochstadt
Springbrook WI
September 3, 2019
Thanks to my cousins, Roger
Tobin and Saul Tobin.
