Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiGetting One's Polar Bearings on Climate Change
It's an interesting phenomenon to live in a town where the level of public vitriol over nearly every political question runs incredibly high. Here in "high Sonoran" Arizona, we enjoy an amazingly diverse and oftentimes starkly polarized topography -- you can go from snow-capped peaks to wind-blown deserts in very short order -- and the cultural landscape seems to follow suit when issues such as immigration, health care, education, or warfare are raised in the public dialogue.
I imagine there are many places where opinions are similarly split over these sorts of matters. But it's also the case that in many locales there's likely a dominant viewpoint that essentially renders one side or the other as a mere "loyal opposition" that wields virtually no real sway in the local debate. One of the things I love most about living in a nascent "purple state" like Arizona is that the polarities are evident and dynamic. It makes for a vibrant discourse and provides a much-needed reality check no matter where one is situated on the political spectrum.
It's one of the reasons I enjoy writing a regular column in the local newspaper, where my blatant advocacy of social and environmental causes regularly draws a mix of brutally hostile and gratefully supportive comments. Being called a "hard-line Marxist" for advocating tame propositions like public transit, open space preservation, or human rights for migrants -- and actually having that critique taken seriously -- keeps one grounded in ways that are useful and distressing all at once.
Among the hotly contentious issues here that I've written about over the years is global warming -- somewhat ironic given that we live in a desert region where the water is drying up and the drought cycle is deepening. A recent film event sponsored by our local Tea Party contingent drew about 1000 people to an auditorium to debunk the "socialistic" myth of climate change in particular and the environmental movement in general, which apparently have the combined effect of driving Americans into unemployment and poverty plus condemning African children to starvation and death. The film's host was quoted in the local media as saying that "Cockroaches make more CO2 than we do" -- although no cockroach was seemingly available for comment or rebuttal.
Now I'm not relating this tale because I think that you necessarily care about the goings-on here in tiny Prescott, Arizona. You probably have your own issues to confront and battles to fight wherever you reside, and reports about meetings of the Flat Earth Society or the Phrenology Club or the Global Warming as Socialist Conspiracy Group aren't particularly germane to you right now. But I do want to share something about the nature of these events that may be of use to you in the struggles that define the public dialogue wherever you happen to be.
First, the teabagger perspective is an intriguing mix of FOX News knee-jerkism and genuine principles about limited government. One can hear the scripted talking points in the "Green is the new Red" commentary as if they were some sort of secret society incantation. Plainly, if given a choice between corporate takeover or governmental takeover of our lives, the former would be preferable and, indeed, more American.
Second, and more to the point, the global warming debate isn't really about science or economics at all. It's actually a question of theology. One side argues that human activities are the largest causal factor driving climate change processes, whereas the other contends that it's all part of a natural cycle that transcends human influence. In many ways, I resonate with the naturalist argument, since humans are part of nature and if we do something it can thus be said to be "natural" on some level. I also appreciate the implicit reverence for natural cycles and the sense of humanity as less than omnipotent.
But that's not the upshot of the climate change deniers. It's really our generational version of the evolution debate that's going on here. Placing the changes we're undeniably seeing (and no one disputes that changes are occurring) in the realm of "natural cycles" is akin to putting it in God's hands and hence removing it from humanity's. This has the effect of reducing human activities and choices to becoming nearly meaningless, and thus bringing our free will almost down to nil in the process. Because the planet goes through cooling and warming cycles regardless of our presence here, there's no point in worrying about recycling, conserving, or consuming wisely. There's simply no reason to be green, and in fact being so is essentially heretical.
Melting ice caps, rising tides, devastating storms -- all seem to fit the eschatology of human insignificance in the face of almighty forces. The hubris of thinking that somehow we can influence our own destiny and that of the earth itself is seen as self-aggrandized hypocrisy (e.g., Al Gore) and misanthropic lunacy (e.g., Rachel Carson) on a biblical scale. The ancient texts are filled with similar accounts that ultimately led to God's wrath being visited upon the transgressors, and to the use of calamities to restore order.
The infotainment architects at FOX and other outlets know this history, and are happy to use political wedge issues to (almost literally) fan the flames of people eager to revel in revelation. This is the central cultural rift taking hold here, namely that between secular humanists and religious determinists. That it permeates issues across the dial is remarkable and yet predictable. It's an age-old divide, after all, and one that seems to be growing with each passing year. Interestingly absent from the polarized debate, however, are the myriad religious humanists in our midst who see the divine in humankind and the power it can wield for positive purposes, and the secular determinists who believe that there's a plan but argue that we're the ones responsible for creating and implementing it.
Finally, the news of our little local soiree made me think not only about polarized opinions, but polar bears too. I had this vision of a giant white creature alone on a melting fragment of ice, not particularly caring whether it was God's apocalypse or one made by humans that caused its plight. As it circumnavigates the globe on its dwindling ice floe, the bear suddenly finds itself face-to-face with a saguaro cactus, in a vast ocean that was once a desert (and before that once an ocean). It ponders the meaning of life and the miracle of its experience, enjoying the newfound quietude yet wondering whether such a peace, achieved at the expense of polarization, is really all that desirable in the end.
38 Comments so far
Show All"....Because the planet goes through cooling and warming cycles regardless of our presence here, there's no point in worrying about recycling, conserving, or consuming wisely...."
That smacks of Dennis Avery's "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" in which Avery articulately cites ice core drillings in Antarctica, much the same as those referred to by Al Gore, which seem to defend well Avery's pronouncement.
Missing from Avery's argument is any mention of whether, every 1500 years, the earth's population discovers and exploits vast reserves of petroleum and whether, every 1500 years, that population reaches six billion.
"Just ask Galileo."
That's a good one. Can't. He's dead!
Meanwhile, what is the highest per capita human activity contributing to global warming and environmental degradation? WAR.
-30-
The "discussion" re: are polar bears increasing or decreasing gives an excellent example of the entire climate change issue. The only polar bears that appear south of northern Alaska are found in zoos. The population there stays fairly stable simply because space is limited and food for them is expensive. Death of a zoo bear is reported in the local newspaper. But real, free ranging, natural polar bears are another story. Very few people living in North America will ever see one in a lifetime. If the entire population of polar bears were wiped out tomorrow, we would only know of the event when those scientists who study such things reported it in some scientific journal and the story was picked up by the news media. The "tree huggers" would be saddened while the "environmental rapists" would respond with a "so what, the oil is still there". The "discussion" would move on to the reasons why the bears are gone. The "tree huggers" would claim that global warming did it. The other side would say that the bears are not really gone, but that those who reported their demise are lying just because they are anti-development. Bear carcass after bear carcass could be shipped down from the arctic until they completely cover Washington, D.C., but the deniers would maintain their story that the scientists are lying, or "it was God's will". The developers would even buy a couple of astrophysicists to publish papers "proving" that there are live bears up there that cannot be found because the experts are too busy blocking development to find them.
So the public debate would rage on about whether there are bears or not, while the arctic turns to oily slush. The people who own the high priced inundated beach property would, by hook or crook, take the higher ground and, eventually put out the word that the coast is now safe because there is no danger of invasion by those white bears.
Somehow, those in the know would become footnotes in history books.
The moral: When ignorant people substitute belief for science, no amount of science will wake them up. Just ask Galileo.
Galileo was vindicated. The vatican apologized... 500 years later.
I am impressed by the open generosity in this article.
But the powerlessness and incredible ignorance of the American man in the street and his consequent rage in the face of the severity of the issue at hand is not the point.
The point has two faces.
First there is a small group of people at the focus of this warming debacle, the oligarchs and their lackeys. They must be relentlessly and reasonably targeted. They have no defence other than to hide. Their cover has to be stripped away, and their forceful, crooked little hands taken off the levers of power. They need to be isolated and overpowered.
Second there is a particular cultural disposition in America that results in the current balance. Why these particular chickens have come home to roost in the American way has to be defined and the cause eradicated.
Neither is an easy job and no one will deny there is going to be blood on the ground, but both have to be obtained reasonably and more or less immediately to avoid collapse and radical violence taking hold in America. Moreover, the responsibility of Americans for the deaths of others is beginning to be something that will visit the children of America for generations.
Too bad we are such clever monkeys...to learn how to burn fossil fuels and then use that immense energy to just make our weapons more sophisticated. From sticks to unmanned drones- what progress! Without regard to the future, we developed and promoted energy-intensive economic systems, suburbs, Hummers, medical care with no responsibility for controlling our numbers, plastic bags, factories, bottled water! etc.
Lucky for us (and for the rest of creation), we've about burned all the easy stuff and the rest will soon be harder to get at. We can only hope that we run out before we have managed to unleash such climate change devastation that a cascade of impacts destroys the very web of interconnected natural systems upon which life depends. If not, and there are somehow a few hardy human survivors, I would like to think they would start again with us and our enormous shortsightedness in mind.
People take in real gas and burn it to go real distances. They buy Hummers, and burn gas to go one-third as far as they had before.
Suddenly, when the consequence of all these real decisions is a blighted climate, we get all gushy and metaphysical about it? 'Nothing can be done, its fate, God, karma. We're just spinning on a little blue dot'
Whatever. Quit driving a Hummer, idiot.
Polar Bears and polarization....Food for thought surely. Are we not in a similar situation to polar bears then, sitting on a piece of rock waiting for our demise as a species? Considering our penchant for violence and greed, humanity appears to be intent on self destruction. Do those of us who are believers really think that "God" who gave us life complete with marvelous brain intended for us to refuse to use it? Whatever one "believes" about climate change/global warming should we not look to earth for our sustenance and the conclusions that obviously or perhaps not so obviously follow? No, apparently that is not how things work in the human world. Laziness of thought and will is rampant. We allow those with power to do our thinking for us and then are quite willing to follow their lead even when it is over the cliff. I guess "God" is also to blame for the implant of human stupidity. We seem to have been hellbent on our own destruction since forever if we read history. Definitely time for change IMO. Thanks Randall for provoking thought!
Love this discussion!We,as humans,were given free will other wise we would be nothing more than a creation like a critter,name any you wish.So with free will and a brain all we are doing is more harm to ourselves and the rest of the living planet,and that is all of it,than any other living species here.I wonder how many people with a spiritual,religious,athieistic or any other human thought really understand that they have free will?I would guess not many otherwise we would not be in this human made mess;if they did then it would follow that they could not blame or claim a Creator that does not cover the whole of humanity and not just family and friends for the Creator did the whole enchilada.The one thing that makes a personage like Jesus,Buddha,Mohammad or any other enlightned human special is that no matter the circumstances they "wanted" to do right;not have to but want to and this is where true freedom is;no question for me because that is free will the way it was meant to be..Tony
a
The climate debate might be framed in terms of religious determinism vs. secular humanism, but I think it can be better understood in terms of individualism vs. collectivism. Climate change deniers insist that collective action infringes upon their freedom to buy the car of their choice, the mansion they want, and all of the sundry crap that makes for a supposedly happy life. Opposed to that view is the idea that we must give up something for the collective good. Indeed, in combatting global warming, our freedom is sacrificed for the good of all.
I've alway thought this "freedom" to wreak whatever havoc we can afford has been greatly overrated, but in my neighborhood (as well as in Arizona, I gather) I feel outnumbered by those committed to overconsumption. Not too sure what can be done about that, but I have a feeling that the problem will take care of itself: Soon no one will be able to afford the extravagances they cannot do without now.
I agree with you. I would only add that it is "individualism" entwined with "wishing will make it so". The culture is so permeated with selling and commercialism and "competition" that some folks have come to believe that "winning" is the same thing as the truth. How else can we explain "deniers" ignoring continents of data while extracting one element out of context and saying "QED" or acting as if ignoring data is "rational" (the common "I'm just being rational and pointing this out")? If they can just "win", the world will conform to their world view. It's a kind of degraded belief in magic. It doesn't explain anything and won't help in any way in confronting and struggling with reality.
The mask is coming off the bogus rationalism of industrial culture, IMO, and the denial industry is one manifestation. Of course, I'm not letting the corporate funders of obfuscation off the hook as corporate culture is just as irrational as any individual.
Brilliant analysis. It becomes impossible to actually have a conversation, to follow a thread, to stop and focus on a specific point. And it permeates everything, not just climate dialog.
This "degraded belief in magic" thrives in the one-way communication of the MSM, and also in the virtual and anonymous blogosphere. Common Dreams seems to do better than most sites at struggling to maintain some space for actual exchange, but it remains a constant issue here.
Spending more time here i'm getting better at recognizing the practitioners of the art of degraded magical thinking in these threads... still not sure how best to handle it. i tend to revert to pointing it out, and presenting counter-points that expose or refute the magical unrealism. But i also get sucked into sniping. Not sure how effective any of it is.
Nice thread this, thanks drosera, Arry and the rest.
Magical thinking has been around for a long time, but now I wonder if the virtual world of computer games, blogs that isolate rather than connect, TV American Idol shows, Harry Potter fantasies, Wii, television blowhards like those on FOX hasn't taken over human consciousness completely.
Contrast the today's world with that, say, sixty years ago. Now, the "I wish it were so, therefore it is so" mode of thinking dominates our world, to wit: "We are the greatest nation" "We are fighting Evil in the Middle East" "The Recession is over" "We have the greatest healthcare system in the world" "Climate change is not happening" Some say these things and repeat them to themselves and their friends (the MSM amplifies their voices), and just by virtue of the repetition, the statements become true!
Sixty years ago magical thinking existed and exerted itself in the form of patriotism and religiosity, but the amplification through the media was not there. People went about their lives rooted in the reality of making a living and bringing up a family. There was less "cocooning", the term I use for isolating yourself from influences that disrupt your view of yourself and the world.
I worry about the separation of groups of people from each other and from objective truth. It is like postmodernism gone wild--there is no objective truth. One person's opinion is as good as the next person's--forget about rationality, informed reflection, or openness to new ideas. Climate denial is just a symptom of a more important pathology: magical thinking, as you both (above) so accurately describe.
Great stuff, drosera and webwalk. It's a subject that deserves much more treatment than we can give it here. Hope we can pick this up elsewhere as the occasion arises.
[To my pagan friends (I have many outside this forum), let me make it clear that I consider the "reenchantment of the world" to be important and that practices leading to integration of the full human "spirit" into the "real" external world are wonderful and good. (I think it was Margo what's-her-name - Bringing Down the Moon - who pointed out that pagans, for the most part, were far more interested in and supportive of science than the members of so-called monotheistic religions, just as so-called primitive people are more observant of and in tune to the details of their surroundings in a very practical way.) Rationality and enchantment are not enemies but friends. Each enfolds the other as can be seen if we step back and look at them from a wide angle. It is involved in expanding consciousness. The "magical thinking" I have been speaking of involves lack of or diminishing consciousness which I am sure you will all agree is a red flag danger as we come to terms with the reality of what industrial culture has wrought.]
Margot Adler "Drawing Down the Moon" if anyone wants to look it up, classic book on paganism in the USA.
Thanks (for covering my laziness.) :-)
BTW, the same point about the relationship of "primitive" people and science was made by Carl Sagan in "The Demon Haunted World" (without the pagan element.) Interesting convergence coming from different angles.
Thanks for the compliment. I enjoy reading your posts, too.
In fact, I am a botanist--at least a serious student of botany. I will confess on this site only: My interest in plants is a love for them. In fact, every botanist I know feels the same way, though he/she would never admit it--at least to scientific colleagues. It is an unspoken truth. Most of us believe the plants came about after a few billion years of evolution; a few have a theistic take. The awe and love are the same, no matter the botanist.
What does this have to do with the truths spoken here? Simply, as you said, "rationality and enchantment are not enemies but friends." So it is. So it is.
I *loved* botany in college. It was fascinating. Humboldt State in Arcata. We went all over Humboldt County looking at plants and the lab was one of my favorite experiences in college. I still have my textbook 40 years later. I could have easily become a botanist and thought seriously about it, but I was diverted into other subjects trying to understand the war and so on.
But I still love plants and easily understand your awe and love.
(I should have gathered something of your field and interest from your screenname. In the back of my mind, I've been thinking "drosera...drosera, that sounds familiar.")
Not being a botanist, first time i saw "drosera" here i looked up "Dr Osera" thinking i would find a real doctor... learned something!
Should I give it away or let you google it? Drosera is the genus name of a small insectivorous plant of bogs. You can find the common name yourself if you don't already know it.
Great post... just to expand upon it, all the "sundry crap" you spoke of is actually ridiculously underpriced because markets don't accurately take into account environmental damage, pollution, traffic, the loss of public space, etc etc etc... If the externalities were properly valued the price of the "sundry crap" would be so expensive that the individualists wouldn't ever be able to afford the "things" they buy to make themselves happy.
We are at the precipice of something... Our institutions are plunging us face-first into an abyss that may have enormous consequences for the beasts of the world, even the two-legged ones.
Thank you'had been wondering what to say about this and the only thing I would add is that the free will he mentions is a human gift from the Creator and if it is used by some,like in the developed nations,to steal and exploit other peoples in other lands what kind of free will do they have?Greed at its deepest level.Tony
It's fun to pick the most extreme of the people who disagree with you, make fun of them, and tar everyone else who disagrees with you in some way with the same brush, but it's hardly mature.
As you pointed out, the teabaggers do it too. If you say you believe in global warming, you're automatically a club of rome anti-human atheist who wants government-enforced birth control. Probably a commie too!
How does it help to marginalize anyone who questions some facet of global warming orthodoxy? How does it help to toe the line on that orthodoxy, even?
You're standing in the way of meaningful action on climate change when you demonize everyone but the most pure of the true believers.
What are you referring to? Where do you see this writer "demonize everyone but the most pure of true believers"? Citation please.
Polar Bears, the canary of the Arctic. Let’s look at some facts from Polar Bear International. Polar population in the 1950’s was around 5,000. Today, polar bear population is between 20,000-25,000 and depending upon the area populations they are either stable (due to hunting to keep population stable) or growing (US Fish and Wildlife Service).
Here's what Polar Bear International says:
"At the time, polar bears were under such severe survival pressure from hunters that a landmark international accord was reached, despite the tensions and suspicions of the Cold War. The International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears was signed in Oslo, November 15, 1973 by the five nations with polar bear populations: Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, the U.S., and the former U.S.S.R.
The polar bear nations agreed to prohibit random, unregulated sport hunting of polar bears and to outlaw hunting the bears from aircraft and icebreakers as had been common practice."
And:
"At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision — this is a change from five that were declining in 2005, five that were stable, and two that were increasing. During the meeting, delegates renewed their conclusion from previous meetings that the greatest conservation challenge to the polar bear is ecological change in the Arctic related to climate warming."
So the experts that you cherry-pick one context-free tidbit of information from, have a simple factual explanation for the rebound in polar bear population that took place in the 1970s and 1980s after the ban on unregulated high-tech "sport" hunting.
And Polar Bear International also cites an IUCN report from a gathering of polar bear scientists, based on hard data from field reports, of an accelerating decline in global polar bear population, directly contradicting your assertion that all polar bear populations are "either stable... or growing", and directly attributing the decline to climate warming.
Got any more denialist obfuscation for us? Hard at work today?
First off, I do not deny that the climate is warming. Is it caused by humans, natural cycles, or a combination of both, no one can clearly answer that question (if there was a clear answer, why is there still debate about it). The fact is that Polar Bears are not on the decline and on the verge of extinction like some environmentalist and Al Gore would like you to believe. I used the Polar Bear Institute as a reference because they believe that global warming is a threat to the bears, but so far, the numbers do not show it. Areas which populations have decreased have been blamed due to illegal hunting/pouching. Other references to polar bear populations include US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Geological Survey, and the United Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works study (January 30, 2008). Polar bears have survived for over 100,000 years during periods of warmer and cooler climates. The biggest threat to the polar bear population is illegal hunting and conservation mismanagement. Lastly, To blame global warming, the data is not there. I am all for being better stewards of the environment such as cleaner and efficient fuels, but let’s use accurate information.
Are you on drugs, or can you not read and process information properly? The article I cited (from the website YOU cited) states unequivocally that "the PBSG renewed the conclusion from previous meetings that the greatest challenge to the conservation of polar bears is ecological change in the Arctic, resulting from climatic warming."
You turn around and claim "The biggest threat to the polar bear population is illegal hunting and conservation mismanagement." (Of course, with no reference or support to back up the claim.) That kind of blinding bias takes real effort! First of all, conservation mismanagement would (or should in a sane analysis) include allowing habitats to disappear due to warming (what could be a bigger example, really?) Second, I'm not saying hunting isn't a factor, but you're talking about a separate issue (hunting) that polar bear authorities such as PBSG regard as less of a challenge than warming.
And let's not forget that you have yet to attest or admit to your original post being completely off the mark when you claimed that all populations are stable or increasing. Your credibility is in serious jeopardy if you can't retract when you get something factually wrong. It's ok to apologize and move on - I'll accept it. Let's use accurate information indeed.
According to IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, 12 areas where polar bears live 2 have increasing populations, 5 have stable populations, and 5 have declining (areas which reliable data has been collected). From other sources, the reason for declining populations include melting ice, hunting/pouching of bears (excessive or no quotas in Cananda or Greenland: Humane Society), humans moving into habitat, oil drilling, and over hunting of seals. Questions: According to some scientists, the current warming trend has been happening since the 1940s-1950s, but why has the polar bear population increased since then (Hunting restrictions may be part of it). Second question, in the seven of the 12 areas which have seen population increase or stable population and those areas have also experienced ice melt, why has the population not been effected of areas of increase or stablility (possible answers: melting ice, hunting/pouching of bears, humans moving into habitat, oil drilling, and over hunting of seals or a combination of some or all)? Yes you are correct, I should have been more careful on my original posting. Also, the PBSG is not the source that I cited.
webwalk: Thanks for your contribution - I didn't see it there until after I posted my comment! Good to know CD'rs are ready to pounce when duty calls. Best regards, Dr BN
And thanks for including the direct link in your post.
newtont94:
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The PBI website presents a very different story than you do. Yes, polar populations were lower in the 1960s due to hunting, but they rebounded in the 1970s due to hunting restrictions. Currently, several subspecies are in decline.
Guys:
Let's try to exert a little more discipline and provide specific references, quotes, and/or links to make our points and support our arguments credibly.
Clearly newtont94 is figuring that no one will actually LOOK at the PBI website, which refutes his "claim" (really just a blatant lie) that no polar bear populations are in decline.
Report link (http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bear-status-report/) (apologies if you have to cut-and-paste - I'm not real savvy with CD's comment mode)
In this report, the opening paragraph is: "At the 15th meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG), hosted by the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, the PBSG renewed the conclusion from previous meetings that the greatest challenge to the conservation of polar bears is ecological change in the Arctic, resulting from climatic warming. Declines in the extent of the sea ice have accelerated since the last meeting of the group in 2005, with unprecedented sea ice retreats in 2007 and 2008. Evidence of these environmental changes, in conjunction with a re-evaluation of the polar bear subpopulations, have led PBSG to list eight of 19 subpopulations as currently decreasing, three as stable and one as increasing."
Does that line up with newtont94's claim, or his not-so-subtle attempt at a critique of available evidence? No, of course not! I mean, c'mon - this took me five minutes to check. Further down in the report, the subpopulations (not "subspecies", cyon - word choice is important here) in decline are clearly stated: they are the Chukchi Sea, Southern Beaufort Sea, Norwegian Bay, Lancaster Sound, Western Hudson Bay, Kane Basin, Baffin Bay, and Davis Strait subpopulations.
OK - here we have an unbelievably lazy troller (newtont94) easily and handily debunked with a minimum of effort. I didn't even have to go to a different website! On to the next topic please.