Why You Should Be Counting BirdsYes, you can do something. Citizen-science initiatives like Project FeederWatch are a great way to start.
By Margaret Renkl
NASHVILLE — Whenever people who are concerned about the environment gather, the conversation invariably turns to questions of how to live more gently on the earth. Concerned people are always asking how they can eat more responsibly, shop more responsibly, keep house more responsibly. How can they lower their carbon footprint? How can they tend their gardens in a way that supports troubled pollinators and other wildlife?
As long as the federal government is in the hands of climate-science deniers, concerned people understand that there’s no hope for a sweeping approach to the growing climate emergency. So they cling to concrete measures that everyday folks can take instead. Fortunately there are many ways to help: Every week, the Climate Fwd. newsletter from The Times includes practical tips for living more sustainably.
But what about the sublimely unconcerned people, those who are living in a way that makes absolutely no sense in light of the incontrovertible changes our climate has already undergone, never mind the peril it faces? I’m not talking about people who have been duped into believing that the climate emergency is just a manifestation of liberal hysteria. I’m talking about educated people on both sides of the political aisle who understand what’s happening but who feel exempt from personal responsibility for it. How is it possible to be informed about this calamity and yet calmly proceed as though nothing at all has changed?
Sure, some of us are by temperament more inclined to worry than others, and some have a greater capacity for imaginative extension. But increasingly, I’ve come to believe that the difference between concerned people and unconcerned people is largely a matter of personal investment. People who don’t feel, in a personal way, what’s happening to the world are better able to put it out of their minds. If you’re fleeing a wildfire — or living for days without power because of the risk of wildfires — you think about these matters with greater urgency... (continues)
By Margaret Renkl
NASHVILLE — Whenever people who are concerned about the environment gather, the conversation invariably turns to questions of how to live more gently on the earth. Concerned people are always asking how they can eat more responsibly, shop more responsibly, keep house more responsibly. How can they lower their carbon footprint? How can they tend their gardens in a way that supports troubled pollinators and other wildlife?
As long as the federal government is in the hands of climate-science deniers, concerned people understand that there’s no hope for a sweeping approach to the growing climate emergency. So they cling to concrete measures that everyday folks can take instead. Fortunately there are many ways to help: Every week, the Climate Fwd. newsletter from The Times includes practical tips for living more sustainably.
But what about the sublimely unconcerned people, those who are living in a way that makes absolutely no sense in light of the incontrovertible changes our climate has already undergone, never mind the peril it faces? I’m not talking about people who have been duped into believing that the climate emergency is just a manifestation of liberal hysteria. I’m talking about educated people on both sides of the political aisle who understand what’s happening but who feel exempt from personal responsibility for it. How is it possible to be informed about this calamity and yet calmly proceed as though nothing at all has changed?
Sure, some of us are by temperament more inclined to worry than others, and some have a greater capacity for imaginative extension. But increasingly, I’ve come to believe that the difference between concerned people and unconcerned people is largely a matter of personal investment. People who don’t feel, in a personal way, what’s happening to the world are better able to put it out of their minds. If you’re fleeing a wildfire — or living for days without power because of the risk of wildfires — you think about these matters with greater urgency... (continues)
