 |
| AP/Jason DeCrow |
Only time will tell if it made even the slightest bit of a difference.
In 1963, approximately 250,000 marched on Washington to demand peaceful and political solution to the civil rights atrocities that institutionalized people of color as second class citizens in this country...the land of freedom and equality. Half a century later, despite achieving short-term political solutions, the dreams given voice that day still have yet to fully materialize. The voices of those opposed to ceding any economic or political power still have control, albeit much more subversively than they did fifty years ago.
In time, however, those voices will - quite literally - die out. It's hollow solace for those who still have to work twice as hard to achieve half as much, but their children will live to see an equal country.
On the issue of fossil fuels, the pollution it causes, and the impact on human life, we do not have that kind of time, and we face a similar, less subtle foe. A search of the hashtag #climatemarch yesterday in the hours that followed the event found both hopeful messages of those who attended or wished they did as well as a healthy mix of trolls* providing counter point to the issue of climate protection. Although we can casually brush off that kind of rhetoric as uncivilized, uneducated, or even irrelevant, one crucial point remains.
The opposition to acting on climate is real, well-funded, and poignant.
Among the schoolyard name calling and pictures of Nicholas Cage, one can find some valid criticism of the climate movement that we need to address if not directly, then at least obliquely. First and foremost, we need to get better at focusing on the issue at hand and not the hyperbolic predictions. Talking about the dangers of sea-level rise, then having to admit they will happen over a hundred years into the future blunts the argument. People believe in the innovative spirit, and trust that that spirit will solve a problem that long into the future. Our aims must focus on much more immediate threats.
Second, tying onto that thought, we need to exercise caution about how far we reach. The science surrounding drought and extreme storms has only just begun to investigate the role that greenhouse gas emissions play. To blame climate change for the California drought, Sandy, and the polar vortex makes for great headlines, but it smacks of the same pseudo-science that fills the counter arguments. Also, it sets up deniers to make similar claims when the US experiences one of the coldest winters on record. We have so many issues with immediate impact: The dangers of mining, the damage to countrysides and water resources, air pollution...we do not need to grasp opportunistically for every straw that comes our way.
Third, we need to get away from arguments that cost more. I personally know that morality tells us to prioritize the lives of people near fossil fuel extraction fields or thermal plants, or those who live in endangered island nations. But I also know that imposing morality on another creates confrontation not solutions. This gets especially true when every argument for solutions ends up recommending solutions that cost more than current options. We need to put our human ingenuity to work and create solutions that cost less. Economic analyses are starting to make the argument that a clean energy future will save us money...blunting any argument for including fossil fuels in any new energy plant. We need to focus on that future, and the dwindling availability of fossil fuels in a world with expanding population and increased development. (In fifty years - a time horizon that people can connect with since most of us expect to live that long, we could be almost out of fossil fuels. The reserves that industry themselves admit to being available, coupled with the current rate of increase in exploitable reserves, still does not match the rate of consumption we will experience over the next half-century.) That means increased prices and decreased quality of life unless we respond. That's a story that people can connect to as we have experienced several such shocks in the past decades.
Lastly, and yesterday's march rightly starts this discussion, we need to focus on the clean energy fight as one of innovation and equality. Amidst the recent public discussions of marriage equality, several conservative pundits noted that they heard a compelling argument on behalf of those seeking the right to marry, and no counter argument to the idea of free choice. We need to have the same focus in the fight on climate. Emissions of any sort provide an opportunity to make sure that prices for sources of energy include all costs associated with each source. If we frame the argument in terms of our communal desire for freedom and a fair market, clean energy wins each time. The more we focus on common themes, the larger a tent we create and the greater our chance of success.
In many ways, the climate march was the art of the possible. The economics favor systems that use less energy, and at every juncture over the past decade, when faced with a challenge to reduce energy use while preserving quality of life, we have succeeded (eg. cutting refrigerator energy use by more than half, increasing fuel efficiency in cars, improving the energy efficiency of buildings). We no longer need to act like a fringe movement nipping at the heels of industry. The growing industries are on our side, and all we need to do is remain consistent and the economics will continue to favor the cause of pollution reduction. If we keep clouding the issue with ideas that do not resonate, and even worse give fuel to opposition, we threaten all the hard work. The next steps forward need to be ones of community...solutions that work for all.
That even includes the trolls.
*trolling is an internet term for those who seek to create discord by playing devil's advocate and saying whatever they can to get a rise out of people.
No comments:
Post a Comment