The riskiest places aren't always obvious, but some of them have already demonstrated vulnerability in the face of storms they have already experienced. And fire and drought also matter. You would not understand how the places most subject to experiencing climate change are also the places most likely to vote against politicians who would not do anything for climate change unless you understood the saturation of political propaganda.
Investing in fossil fuels is jobs and money and success and capitalism and why would you not want these things, you Commie?
But it's dumb. We sometimes use the idea of a frog in boiling water. The frog doesn't know how fucked he is because it's slow and steady--and the damage climate change is doing is mostly slow and steady.
To understand that climate activism is risky and the stakes are localized and also globalized, let's talk about a forest defender who was killed for trying to prevent the death of a forest to create a "cop city". We can know climate change is real and police brutality is real. We can understand how an activist becomes noxious to the local authorities--but so much that they are murdered? It involves money--and happens more than we like to think. It's kind of the reason I look askance at the idiots who throw soup and stuff at museum pieces. Yeah. you get your 15 minutes of fame for pretending to do shit for the climate. But you will never be murdered by Amazonian loggers for realizing that they are chainsawing the lungs of the planet. Not that you need to to be effective. But also, you look stupid, and this is not a movement that needs stupid people.
We need wild and untrammeled places. We need to not profane the wilderness with cop cities or to drill more or whatever. We need places that aren't polluted, dumped in or on, where we aren't planning developments for more people, where we have nature just existing,
But the meta conversation where we drastically stop fossil fuel consumption and try to stop the hemorrhaging we will experience as climate change starts to fuxxor us over the things we already let slide? We still somehow aren't ready. How? Haven't we seen floods enough, desertification enough, tragedies enough?
We humans are optimists in order to survive, but I think it has skewed our understanding of what we need to do to survive the anthropogenic nightmare we have started. We can talk about risk, and it seems unreal. Even as all around us we experience things that are not what they used to be. Things that should feel like the beginning of the end of us if we don't make changes.
The place to start is in recognition that the atmosphere, the thin layer of no longer potentially toxic gasses we live in enveloping the only ball of rock we know of we can live on, does not recognize the boundaries of "nation/states" ...
Yeah, when I hear elected officials blow off action on regulating carbon by saying "well India doesn't do " this that and the other or "Well China can pollute...." That isn't the point. Figure out a way to get them into compliance--because there isn't any place that isn't going to be fucked. People who are making plans to retire to the Orkney Islands because of latitude and lack of relative human congestion (today) don't realize the land mass will be reduced, noticeably, by sea level rise and erosion, during their lifetimes. And that near polar latitudes in general will become target destinations for people escaping increasingly unlivable conditions.
People talk about silver linings, but a planet where coffee grows in New England states or Greenland hosts amber waves of grain means North Africa can't sustain life. Where the fertile crescent civilization came out of isn't fertile anymore, and with that comes a lot of human misery.
I want to live a long time, but if my old age overlaps with watching penguins go extinct, or whatever, it's not acceptable. I don't live anywhere near the natural habitat of penguins. Still and all, I consider them a part of my problem.
Post a Comment