Wednesday, September 23, 2020

Should We "Freak Out"?

    "During the last five decades, global fossil fuel use has nearly tripled" (104). We are told we have a very limited amount of time left with fossil fuels. As we all know, these resources will run out, without having anything else to supply the way we've been consuming for centuries now. The consequences of our habits is clear, now more than ever. Global temperatures are rising, our country is on fire, the ocean's acidity will not sustain all the life it currently does for much longer, among countless other affects we are witnessing currently. And yet, our country's government is continuously taking steps to oppose environmental action. So, if our government is not freaking out about this climate crisis, should we? 

Yes. We should. I'm sure that for many of us, including myself, it can be easy to ignore the current environmental issues. Aside from summers being slightly hotter, most of us in Tennessee currently aren't directly affected by climate change, or at least the effects have progressed in a manner that is easy to ignore. In many part of the world, this willful blindness is not so easy. If you just lost your house and your entire surroundings to the wildfires on the west coast, the reality of climate change is unavoidable. If you live near the gulf coast, the tropical storms are a yearly reminder of what we've done to this planet. 

We are seeing the things that scientists have warned us about for decades now, and yet very little, if anything, is being done. It doesn't matter if freaking out causes fear. We are already fearful. We are losing.


Weekly summary:

Sept 23: This Essay, Comment on Tanner's post, Comment on Patrick's post

4 comments:

  1. I want to tell you that I enjoy hearing your views. It takes me back to the ‘60s and early ‘70s; Vietnam, civil rights, hippies. It has bothered me for over half my life that I didn’t not see the wrongness of Vietnam. I did not hear what the protestors were saying. I was a John Wayne American. It embarrasses me that I was not a part of the great social movements of the time. I may not agree with all you say, but I think it is great that you are so informed, aware, and committed to social and political justice.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm with Ed, I appreciate and respect your engaged commitment to changing what's broken and am heartened to think your generation may persist where others desisted and resigned themselves to a bad System. Just try not to lose the baby with the bath. (The "baby" including, for instance, codified civil liberties...though most of us haven't been using those anyway.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Eloquently put. I do think that while we should have a lot more attention on this environmental crisis, I don’t think panic in the strict sense of the word is what we want. However, I can see why panic would be an attractive alternative because if people are panicking that means the issue is being taken more seriously and having a swifter response. But creating panic comes with its own negatives. I hope that we can get to the point where we can make significant and meaningful change without having to make everyone freak out. But time is limited.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Organizing is the only answer. Striking is the only option. However, in such a polarized climate, it is nearly impossible to get the message through. In a world of algorithm based news sources, politicized scientific fact, and a workforce dependent on multiple revenue streams and a 40+ hour week, organizing a majority for a general strike seems nearly impossible. I thought this summer's events would be an awakening, but it only seems to have polarized the masses even more. I am unsure how to get the momentum going that is needed.

    ReplyDelete