• Monthly
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $other
  • use PayPal

ONE WEEK TO DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!

A generous CounterPuncher has offered a $25,000 matching grant. So for this week only, whatever you can donate will be doubled up to $25,000! If you have the means, please donate! If you already have done so, thank you for your support. All contributions are tax-deductible.
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Beyond the Knife’s Edge: The Language and Politics of Ecological Brinkmanship

We’ve been hearing for some time now that the world is at a critical juncture in the timetable of decisive action regarding climate change. The “knife’s edge” of this timeline—the final, razor-thin boundary separating our ability to reverse course from a long, fatal plunge into ecological disaster—has been evoked, perhaps quite properly, by commentators far and wide with increasing frequency and breathlessness over the last few years, if not decades. It’s worth asking, then, how wide the knife’s edge really is, and at what point we’ll have actually, finally, gone past this ostensible point-of-no-return.

The latest entry in this prolonged saga of self-flagellation is President Trump’s decision this week to pull the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement, a decision that (while not surprising) has invited countless characterizations as variously “disgraceful,” “a suicide note to the world,” and a “crime against humanity,” none of which qualify as particularly controversial, and none of which are necessarily wrong. This inevitability (opposed, curiously, by such unlikely quarters within Trump’s own camp as former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson) was the most serious and most recent in a long line of US leadership failures on this front that could previously be characterized as “too little, too late,” but have now entered into a far more actively regressive realm.

To be sure, the unilateral decision made Thursday, in the face of all good evidence and an overwhelming worldwide consensus, represents a new low of cowboy-arrogance and science-rejectionism on the part of the US, to our everlasting and ever-growing shame. The only other countries in the world to opt out of the Agreement are Syria and Nicaragua, who combine to make up a small fraction of the emissions output that the US represents. The consequences, regardless of any future reversals by future administrations, aren’t going to be good. The talk of economic advantages is the standard nonsense.

This episode, despite the severity, is far from the only time in recent memory that the apocalyptic outcome has been suggested. The casual observer may be forgiven for perceiving that we seem to reach some new, final moment of reckoning on the climate change question once or twice a year. Back in 2012 former NASA researcher Bob Watson claimed that we’d already missed the deadline to avoid the tell-tale 2 degree Celsius warming point that would ultimately signify “dangerous” levels of climate change. By his count, 2010 marked the year by which the major contributors to worldwide climate change (read: the rich countries) should have significantly curtailed their greenhouse gas emissions if we realistically hoped to avoid the eventual catastrophe. Indeed, Noam Chomsky in January 2011 characterized the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives the previous November as “kind of a death knell for the species.” You have to assume he meant that at least mostly literally.

If these luminaries sound alarmist to you, at least they’re not alone. The language of imminent, irreversible, and total disaster has long been attached to discussions of climate change, as most people can recall without particular reference. The sense of urgency, at least, has been around for well over a decade, if not longer. In 2007 the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that there “could be as little as eight years left” to avoid that 2 degree harbinger. If any coal-rollers remembered that warning by 2015, you can probably imagine their self-satisfied disdain yourself.

This is not to say that those dire warnings were not, in large part, justified. But it’s easy to see why some people, long-enshrouded in end-of-times language concerning a topic they badly misunderstand and have been trained to laugh about, become resistant to ongoing warnings that have started to seem like a broken record with no in-your-face evidence to back them up. They don’t care about a disaster that they can’t see, or that is mostly still waiting in the wings, even as they’re told for the umpteenth time that the beginning stages are currently unfolding around them. So when these same people yet again hear the renewed refrain of this ticking time-bomb as they read coverage of Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, they’re already tuned out from the message of the accompanying condemnations.

If the language is what’s turning people off, perhaps we could just try the boring facts. As a half-baked thought experiment, let’s assume that the worst really has already come to pass, that it’s too late to avoid whatever fate accompanies a long-term 2 degree Celsius warming. What might we expect to see?

NASA is commendably restrained in stating their position that climate change is guaranteed to offer a wide range of changes for the planet: some good, some bad, but on the whole probably mostly bad. The full effects will only be known by direct observation of this scary, high-stakes, irreversible experiment, as it’s run on our planet. That is the very conservative, optimistic view. The non-sensationalist one.

As if that’s not bad enough, others (who are less constrained to speak in certainties) foresee devastating effects rippling out from the minimal guarantees outlined by NASA. Chomsky’s “death knell” refers, among other things, to a predicted melting of the Himalayan glaciers, which would “[destroy] the water supply for South Asia.” The resulting competition for water, which is already a major issue in India, among other places in the region, could easily lead to a clash between India and Pakistan, who, Chomsky ominously reminds us, are both nuclear states. You throw in the mass exoduses that are predicted to occur from such low-lying places as Bangladesh and the Marshall Islands and other places, and you are looking at a refugee crisis that will make today’s Syrian situation in Europe look like a minor rehearsal. These are just some of many examples.

You can see that what may at first appear to be mere sensationalism (death knells and what-not), may, upon further elaboration, bear serious consideration. Still, I think it’s worthwhile to separate the known, minimally inevitable reality, which is already serious enough, from overly grandiose proclamations about our looming fate. Like Al Gore’s flawed, over-the-top predictions in 2006’s An Inconvenient Truth, any inaccuracy (real or imagined) threatens to undermine the perceived legitimacy of the issue among an American public that already possesses a misplaced skepticism and borderline hostility toward mainstream science. In Gore’s case, the film probably hurt his cause more than helped it, and gave the wider American public an unfortunate primer on the subject that included just-around-the-corner predictions that then promptly failed to pan out. That’s still the main association many Americans have with the concept.

Let me try to return to the question posed at the outset. Have we really, for the past decade plus, been on an environmental knife’s edge, and if so, at what point will we have gone past it? The answer, predictably, is not clear-cut. If you look at this period in reference to a long enough (perhaps geological) timescale, then yes, it seems fair to describe the past many years as a virtual instant of time in which decisions will have been made with magnificent, perhaps everlasting, consequences. We failed to make the drastic changes that the experts deemed necessary to avoid the drawn-out, one-time-only experiment that we now face, and the coming decades will increasingly reveal that to a public that will perhaps slowly come to accept the reality of the situation only as the metaphorical and literal floodwaters rise around them.

This article does not contain any real solution to the problems it has attempted to highlight. Maybe some people just can’t be helped. I doubt that a more cautious, nuanced elaboration on the prospects we’re facing will be any more effective at persuading a stubborn populace to reverse course on a topic they made up their minds about a long time ago. I’m not sure that a path toward environmental sustainability, to the extent that it limits damage going forward, can ever hope to rely on these people. The US (and by extension, the rest of the world), will have to take action in spite of the sizable segment of its voting population who refuse to recognize what everyone else already knows. We can only hope that happens sooner rather than later.

More articles by:
bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
Weekend Edition
October 18, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Stephen Cooper
Scientist vs. Cooper: The Interview, Round 3 
Susan Block
How “Hustlers” Hustles Us
Charles R. Larson
Review: Elif Shafak’s “10 Minutes 38 Seconds in This Strange World”
October 17, 2019
Steve Early
The Irishman Cometh: Teamster History Hits the Big Screen (Again)
Jonathan Cook
Israel Prepares to Turn Bedouin Citizens into Refugees in Their Own Country
Stan Cox
Healing the Rift Between Political Reality and Ecological Reality
Jeff Klein
Syria, the Kurds, Turkey and the U.S.: Why Progressives Should Not Support a New Imperial Partition in the Middle East
George Ochenski
The Governor, the Mining Company and the Future of a Montana Wilderness
Charles Pierson
Bret Stephens’ American Fantasy
Ted Rall
The First Thing We Do, Let’s Fire All the Cops
Jon Rynn
Saving the Green New Deal
Ajamu Baraka
Syria: Exposing Western Radical Collaboration with Imperialism
Binoy Kampmark
A Coalition of Support: Parliamentarians for Julian Assange
Thomas Knapp
The Down Side of Impeachment
Harvey Wasserman
What Really Happened to American Socialism?
Tom Engelhardt
American Brexit
October 16, 2019
Patrick Cockburn
How Turkey’s Invasion of Syria Backfired on Erdogan
Chitrangada Choudhury – Aniket Aga
How Cotton Became a Headache in the Age of Climate Chaos
Jack Rasmus
US-China Mini-Trade Deal: Trump Takes the Money and Runs
Michael Welton
Communist Dictatorship in Our Midst
Robert Hunziker
Extinction Rebellion Sweeps the World
Peter A. Coclanis
Donald Trump as Artist
Chris Floyd
Byzantium Now: Time-Warping From Justinian to Trump
Steve Klinger
In For a Dime, in For a Dollar
Gary Leupp
The Maria Ramirez Story
Kim C. Domenico
It Serves Us Right To Suffer: Breaking Down Neoliberal Complacency
Kiley Blackman
Wildlife Killing Contests are Unethical
Colin Todhunter
Bayer Shareholders: Put Health and Nature First and Stop Funding This Company!
Andrés Castro
Looking Normal in Kew Gardens
October 15, 2019
Victor Grossman
The Berlin Wall, Thirty Years Later
Raouf Halaby
Kurdish Massacres: One of Britain’s Many Original Sins
Robert Fisk
Trump and Erdogan have Much in Common – and the Kurds will be the Tragic Victims of Their Idiocy
Ron Jacobs
Betrayal in the Levant
Wilma Salgado
Ecuador: Lenin Moreno’s Government Sacrifices the Poor to Satisfy the IMF
Ralph Nader
The Congress Has to Draw the Line
William A. Cohn
The Don Fought the Law…
John W. Whitehead
One Man Against the Monster: John Lennon vs. the Deep State
Lara Merling – Leo Baunach
Sovereign Debt Restructuring: Not Falling Prey to Vultures
Norman Solomon
The More Joe Biden Stumbles, the More Corporate Democrats Freak Out
Jim Britell
The Problem With Partnerships and Roundtables
Howard Lisnoff
More Incitement to Violence by Trump’s Fellow Travelers
Binoy Kampmark
University Woes: the Managerial Class Gets Uppity
Joe Emersberger
Media Smears, Political Persecution Set the Stage for Austerity and the Backlash Against It in Ecuador
Thomas Mountain
Ethiopia’s Abiy Ahmed Wins Nobel Peace Prize, But It Takes Two to Make Peace
Wim Laven
Citizens Must Remove Trump From Office
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail