a "World War II-scale mobilization" in context

Yesterday, on the occasion of the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, I heard an interview with an author writing about the Manhattan Project. At one point, he mentioned the major problems besetting the world today, and that we could use another mobilization on the scale of the Manhattan Project to combat climate change (or words to that effect).

It struck me that this is another manifestation of our denialism regarding the climate emergency. While there is a World War II analogy for this emergency, it is emphatically not the Manhattan Project — rather, it is the entire idea of shared sacrifice that was so prevalent in the war years. Here in Richmond, at the Rosie the Riveter museum, you can see war-era posters exhorting citizens to "use it up, wear it out, make it do" and ration cards for meat, butter and sugar.

If we were to take on this ethic of shared sacrifice, it could at least start us on the road toward conquering the overconsumption which is at the root of the crisis (yes, we would have to re-organize our economy to deal with no-growth — something that will have to be done to live on a finite planet)... But instead, we've been told so often that we have the know-how to fix this without having to give up anything, the first WWII image that comes to mind for so many people is the Manhattan Project and a quick technological fix. Unfortunately, any techno-fixes out there are either pipe-dreams, or simply defy the laws of thermodynamics (or both). We keep waiting for that mobilization around the "green economy" because no one wants to be the grown-up and declare that we can't have our cake and eat it, too — that is, we can't keep our lifestyles and a habitable planet.

"moral authority" and personal choices

I've been thinking more about one of those dichotomies I wrote about a little while back (aaargh! Has it really been over a month since the last time I wrote here?? There's so much I want to write about, and so little time… sigh… a lot, I'm afraid, will wait until summer break) — personal consumption vs. systemic change. Of course, as far as I'm concerned there is no real dichotomy, we absolutely need both — the climate emergency is so urgent we need everything we can do, as fast as we can do it — but there is another aspect to this one, and that is carrying the moral authority to even advocate for changing the systems we live under… or, in other words, simply not opening oneself up to being seen as a hypocrite.

It occurred to me that this is something those in the animal rights community take for granted. Imagine the sneers if animal activists showed up at demonstrations wearing leather shoes and munching cheeseburgers — but it doesn't happen because I have never met any animal rights folks who were not committed ethical vegans (and yes, that does mean eschewing all animal products, including leather and wool). Of course animal activists' main concern is that they do not themselves cause any unnecessary suffering if they can possibly help it (even though individual actions are trivial in the face of the massive suffering of billions of animals); but avoiding hypocrisy is also important to any political movement.

On a similar note, after a recent anti-Keystone XL protest in San Francisco, someone wrote a letter to the Chronicle decrying the protesters for hypocrisy, as (he said) he watched them get into their gasoline-powered cars and drive away… Now this is pretty hard to believe in any case — if you know anything about the parking situation around SF's civic center, you know it would be well-nigh impossible to follow more than one or two people back to a parking spaces (which would be blocks away in various directions), and anyone coming to protest would have been crazy not to simply hop on BART (so much easier for getting to that part of town, even if principles were not an issue). But still these stories crop up, because the opposition is so intent on finding hypocrisy…

… So why let them? Granted, one person's consumption choices are not going to by themselves save the planet; and granted, no one is perfect (certainly not me)… But while we advocate for the end of industrial capitalism, or whatever systemic change might actually have a chance of making a difference, we need to do the absolute best we can to carry that moral authority in ourselves, to walk our talk. Of course, this is nuanced — while it is possible (though difficult) to completely avoid animal products, it is nearly impossible to live in today's society without burning some fossil fuels. But we can certainly try to at least stop doing the big things: eating meat, flying on airplanes, just being part of the consumer culture. Take a hint from the animal rights folks — you can't effectively protest at the slaughterhouse wearing leather shoes and munching cheeseburgers, and you can't effectively protest the fossil fuel industry by using their products (and that does mean flying cross-country to the protest — and munching cheeseburgers, even artisan, grass-fed ones). And it is incumbent on all of us to do as much as we can to avoid causing suffering by our actions, whether that means being an ethical vegan to avoid causing animal cruelty, or not buying any new stuff because it might, just might, help avoid the extinction of one little species somewhere down the line...

the urgency of the problem — either / or vs. both / and

In some of the online forums I peruse from time to time, there is often a lot of "either/or" talk — endless arguments about which of two problems (or solutions) is most pressing, important, necessary, possible…
Population versus consumption is a frequent theme; also renewables versus consumption — that is, whether renewables can supply all of our energy "needs" or whether we need to reduce consumption; a third common dichotomy is systemic change versus personal consumption — "the problem is capitalism… industrial civilization… big oil… big coal… the corporations… the military-industrial complex…"

What all of these "either/or" arguments miss, of course, is that this is a multiplication problem — debating whether population or consumption is more destructive, or whether developing renewables or reducing consumption is more effective, really makes just as much sense as debating whether height or width is more important in finding the area of a rectangle!

But beyond that, these dualities betray a misunderstanding of the scale and urgency of the problem. Climate scientist Kevin Anderson has determined that we need to cut our emissions 10% per year — and drop emissions to ZERO within ten years — just to have an outside chance of holding warming to the longstanding target of 2°C (and we know what effects we are already seeing from just 0.8°C, with more in the pipeline from what we've already emitted — the 4-6° we are heading for is nearly unimaginable). So our emissions have to essentially drop off the proverbial cliff — and that is not going to happen by reducing either consumption or population, or by either effecting systemic change or changing our own lifestyles (as if one could happen without the other); and certainly not by developing renewables without radically reducing consumption as well. This is an all-hands-on-deck, do everything we possibly can as fast as we can situation, and it feels as if very few people I run into really, truly get that.

There seems to be an idea out there that if we begin to reduce our emissions somewhat, then things will start to get better... and little awareness of the cumulative nature of the problem — that what matters to the climate system is the total amount of carbon we add to the atmosphere, not how fast we put it up there. David Roberts, writing in Grist, attributes this in part to thinking about global warming the same way we think of other environmental problems like air or water pollution: if we quit putting particulates into the air, the smog dissipates within a few days (witness the dramatic improvement in air quality in LA when city officials instituted traffic controls during the 1984 Olympics); and if a factory stops dumping its wastes into a river, the water will run cleaner pretty quickly as well. But the CO2 we emit stays up there in the atmosphere for up to a century, and carbon emissions accumulate (sort of like lead posioning in your body) — and that is the piece of this that people seem to have trouble getting their heads around. Our habits of thinking are too ingrained, ironically from past successes.

So a lot of concerned, well-meaning folks (including many of my friends and relations) don't really feel the urgency, and continue to go about their lives thinking that something will come along to fix this — after all, we sent a man to the moon, didn't we?...Or debate which of various dual options is the most realistic, with little recognition that the only way to do what really needs to be done — that is, bring emissions down to ZERO, as soon as possible — is to radically reduce both population and consumption, to both develop renewables and reduce consumption; and to (yes) change our capitalist-industrial-corporate system and look to our own wasteful lifestyles that support that system.

More about all three of these in future posts, soon I hope (sorry I am not as prolific as I would like to be, I'm a bit painstaking in my writing)…

the dilemma

Last week, we (my husband and I) ran into a couple of friends/acquaintances/colleagues we hadn't seen in a while; and in the course of the usual "so, what have you been up to lately" talk, they told us all about their recent travels to Asia and Europe… And I found myself confronting my usual dilemma in these situations: do I bite my tongue, nod and listen politely (thus implying that I think flying around the world is not incredibly destructive), or do I let myself blurt out something like "do you know how much a flight to Europe actually costs in terms of atmospheric carbon?"

After all, one reason I wrote that long letter (and then started this blog) in the first place was to explain to my friends why I can't share their joy in flying off to distant lands, but tend to sit in uncomfortable silence when talk turns to foreign travel… And another (probably the main) reason was that I do feel the political situation is hopeless, and the only way to turn this thing around is to change people's behavior, persuade others to live as low-carbon as possible, one friend at a time if need be…

But when it comes right down to it, it's very hard to go beyond that uncomfortable silence stage and actually evangelize for a livable planet — not without alienating all of my friends and colleagues, which is not a good way to change anyone's behavior in any case. So when I wrote my letter, I carefully worded it to avoid insulting and driving away those that I sent it to, hoping against hope that it might give someone enough food for thought to begin to change some habits...

I desperately wish for a sane world, a world where travel mavens like Rick Steves (not to mention feedlot operators) were looked on as the social parasites they are, and where hopping on a plane for vacation and all forms of conspicuous consumption were as socially unacceptable as smoking in a roomful of children… But we need a huge shift in perceptions to get there, and in the meantime I guess I'm not a very good evangelist. I wish I knew how to do this better…

my opening missive

Last week I sent a very long email to a few dozen of my friends, hoping to start some conversations and perhaps somehow make a difference. This is what I wrote:

Dear friends,

I would like to beg your indulgence as I begin the year with a long missive on a subject which has troubled my mind and occupied my thoughts for some time now. I have debated with myself over how to word this, and then whether to even send it out — knowing that this will pretty much brand me as a crazy obsessed environmentalist — but I so felt the need to do something that I have finally decided to send a cry from the heart and see what comes. I apologize for the length — it proved difficult to say what I feel without including the background information — my intention is not to pretend to know everything (I certainly don't), but to share some of what I've read about and perhaps to give some food for contemplation and start some conversations. So I would greatly appreciate your reading this, if you might have the time, and letting me know what you think about it...

I have read enough about global warming to understand the desperate situation we are in — the human-created calamity already set in motion, and the near-impossible measures needed, almost immediately, to avert an even worse crisis and somehow preserve a habitable planet. "Business as usual" puts the world on course for a rise of 6°C (11°F) this century. Researchers and activists have used 2°C (3.6°F) as the upper limit of minimal "safety" before positive feedbacks send warming spiraling completely out of control. Yet even now, at 0.8°C of warming, the Arctic sea ice is melting away alarmingly faster than anyone ever predicted; and the greenhouse gasses we have already emitted are enough to bring us to nearly 2°C of warming, even if we stopped using fossil fuels, cold turkey, tomorrow. We are well on the way toward a climate that is simply incompatible with life as we know it. Meanwhile, right now, the oceans are dying before our eyes (with dead zones expanding and 90% of large fish already gone), trees are dying across the planet, and species are being driven to extinction at the rate of one every seven minutes.

I also understand the extreme improbability of anything meaningful being done. Most solutions put forth in general discourse are on a scale so insignificant as to make almost no difference at all. There are solutions that could make a difference — emissions reductions of 10% a year, coupled with massive reforestation, would be a step; and a large carbon fee (with the dividends returned to the people, per capita) is one proposal for a way to get there. The problem is that we live on a finite planet, and reducing emissions enough to avert climate catastrophe is simply not compatible with endless growth — but endless growth is what all our economic and political systems depend on. So we talk about "sustainable growth" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) and keep chasing the chimera of a technological fix that could allow us to grow indefinitely — a fix which is as mythical as a perpetual motion machine. Because of the rebound effect, producing more energy (of whatever kind, including "renewables") simply lowers cost and leads to more consumption — much in the same way that widening freeways simply encourages more driving and never actually solves the traffic problem. "Clean energy" really only helps keep us on the path of thinking we can keep using all the energy we need to fuel our unsustainable "lifestyles"… and allow us to put off facing the fact that what is needed is to simply STOP what we are doing, change the way we are living -- and radically, and now. In this situation, there truly is no free lunch.

The crisis we face goes so far beyond fluorescent lightbulbs, hybrid cars, and "green consumerism" (another oxymoron). Research has determined that we cannot pour more than about 500 gigatons more carbon into the atmosphere and still have any hope of averting total disaster —and that 500 gigatons is about one-fifth of the carbon in proven fossil fuel reserves (forget about "peak oil" — our problem is that we still have way too much of the stuff). Only governments, working together, could possibly be powerful enough to keep all that carbon in the ground and rein in the fossil fuel companies that profit by using our atmosphere as a waste dump; only true systemic change will get us where we need to go — and systemic change, as Derrick Jensen warns, will not be brought about by personal choices. And I do know that my own attempts to live within a carbon budget, such as they are, really make no discernible difference (especially given that rebound effect, by which my conservation just makes consumption cheaper and easier for others…)

And yet, and yet... While it is absolutely true that global warming cannot be fought through consumer choices alone — we must battle the powerful economic interests who profit from our emissions and the government entities who serve them — it is equally true that we cannot hope to battle those interests while continuing to buy whatever they are selling. I do feel the need to make the best choices I can, to "walk my talk"… And, despairing of any hope for systems to change or for the powerful to do the right thing, I am beginning to agree with the sentiment expressed by a commenter on a UK Guardian thread, who said that "it is much harder to change the political system than to change your own behavior and the behavior of people you know," that the only way to make headway is to live as low-carbon as possible, and persuade others to do the same, one by one if need be. If enough of us do that, recursively multiplying our numbers, eventually the systems that support our unsustainable consumption may begin to crumble… (it's not much hope, but it's all I've got).

And here's the problem — I know very well that telling anyone that "this is what you should and shouldn't be doing" is a really quick and easy way to lose friends… So let me say right off that I certainly don't consider myself any kind of exemplar —I still drive a car to work every day (sigh… to two different schools, on opposite ends of town), I generally use far too much carbon just living in our rich industrialized culture (the best estimates of allowable limits for the kind of reductions we need are anywhere from ½ ton to 2 tons of carbon per person, per year — the average American uses twenty). But there are a few things I've looked into and found out a little about — so if you'll indulge me (if you're still reading, this far), I'll share a little, and you can take it as you may — and if enough folks start the conversation, maybe our governments might get around to doing what's necessary to allow us to live sustainably… My big three precepts for myself, as the three biggest things an individual can do, are: 1. Don't eat meat; 2. Don't fly on airplanes; and 3. Don't buy any new stuff you don't absolutely need.

Eating meat — When I stopped eating meat long ago it was for completely different reasons; but as it happens, meat production is incredibly carbon-intensive. The way it is produced these days, meat is simply grain, concentrated: each pound of meat contains many times that amount of grain (the vast majority of grain we grow goes to feed livestock) — along with all of the petroleum fertilizers, the rainforests cut down to run cattle, etc. etc… The UN FAO estimated that meat is responsible for 17% of all carbon emissions worldwide; Worldwatch added up the things the FAO left out and came up with the incredible figure of 51%. Either way, it's huge.

Flying — Air travel is also incredibly, if not unconscionably, carbon-intensive. One roundtrip LA-to-NY flight uses the equivalent of about 2 tons of CO2 emissions per (economy class) passenger — about the same amount the average resident of Brazil uses in a year, and either equivalent to or many times more than the per-person allowable annual limit for the necessary reductions… When my parents were young, flying was a huge big deal, but now it has become so commonplace that we think nothing of jetting across the country or the world for work or vacation. If carbon were priced at anything like a rate commensurate with its damage, none of us (at least in my circles) could afford to fly — it would again be a rare luxury rather than something we regularly use for transportation.

Buying stuff — This is sort of a no-brainer. A huge part of our emissions comes from manufacturing, buying, using, and then throwing away our stuff — It is a measure of the sickness of our society that we are defined as consumers instead of as citizens. China recently (and famously) passed up the US in total GHG emissions — but what's not usually mentioned is the reason for that is all of the stuff we buy from them! A Chronicle story before the holidays said that 75% of all new toys in the US are manufactured offshore (and the majority of those in China). So if you hear that US emissions have dropped slightly, that is why — we are simply offshoring our carbon emissions along with our jobs.

Of course, I know that common wisdom will say that if we all did this, our economy would take the proverbial nosedive. There's the rub: our economy, dependent on endless growth, just cannot be sustained over the long run — and the long run is getting very short these days. I know there are models of steady-state economies out there, which I have yet to investigate fully… but the important thing is that the collapse of a habitable planet, and the chaos that goes with it, will be orders of magnitude worse than the collapse of an economy. David Roberts, in "The Brutal Logic of Climate Change," talks about planned austerity, shared sacrifice… an "all-hands-on-deck mobilization" that is the moral equivalent of war. Life as we know it will have to change, for life as we know it not to be lost entirely.

It is already too late to avert disastrous effects — right now the Arctic icecap is melting away, with all of the feedbacks that entails — and it is easy to lose hope completely, to say there's no use trying, we can't prevent catastrophe whatever we do… But what we can do is to prevent catastrophe from being even worse, and in so doing we can make a difference.

The story I keep telling myself is the one about a father and child walking on a beach covered as far as the eye can see with starfish washed ashore, dead and dying. When the child picks up a starfish to toss it back in the ocean, the father asks "Why? What difference can you possibly make, just you, with all these thousands and thousands of starfish dying?" And the child picks up another one, tosses it in the ocean, and says "It makes a difference to that one."

Dear friends, if you are still reading, I truly appreciate the time you have taken with this… I have been sick at heart, knowing what we are doing to the world and the innocent life around us, watching as we hurtle toward a mass extinction, not knowing what to do that might be of any use. David Roberts said that "building a core cadre of intense, motivated citizens who feel the climate threat in their bones is an indispensable part of the puzzle" — maybe that's part of the reason I wrote this. Getting the conversation going is perhaps a start, and I would love to hear your thoughts… Thank you for listening.

peace and good wishes,
Avilee


(and just a few of my favorite, pertinent, quotes)…

"Do we want a living real world, or do we want a social structure that is killing the real world? Do we want a living real world, or do we want a dead real world, with a former social structure forgotten by everyone because there is no one left alive to remember? You choose." - Derrick Jensen

"I believe we are musicians in a human orchestra. It is time now to play the Save the World Symphony. It is a vast orchestral piece, and you are but one musician. You are not required to play a solo. But you are required to figure out what instrument you hold and play it as well as you can."   - Sandra Steingraber

We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time… Over the bleached bones and jumbled residue of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late."
    - Martin Luther King Jr. — "Beyond Vietnam" speech, April 4, 1967

"If we appear to seek the unattainable, it has been said, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable."
    - Port Huron Statement of the SDS

 “It makes a crucial difference whether humankind thinks of the natural world as consisting of resources or relatives.” - Oren Lyons, quoted by Daniel Wildcat in Red Alert