Lights, camera, action!
Heather: I want to thank Robin Attfield, Hope Jahren, and Bill McKibben for joining me in this important discussion regarding climate change. I want to begin our conversation with a question. Do you think the ‘human game has begun to play itself out,’ or do you believe we will avert the worst imaginable outcomes of climate change in the century ahead? If so, how? If not, why not? Mr. McKibben, because you set out to answer this question in your book, “Falter,” I think that it would be best to start with you.
McKibben: Thank you, Heather. First of all, I think it would be a good idea to explain what exactly I mean by the human game. What I’m calling the human game is unimaginably deep, complex and beautiful (Falter, 10). It is the sum total of culture and commerce and politics; of religion and sport and social life; of dance and music; of dinner and art and cancer and sex and Instagram; of love and loss; of everything that comprises the experience of our species (Falter, 8). It is also endangered. Indeed, it is beginning to falter even now (Falter, 10).
Heather: Considering the ever-growing evidence that human behaviors are driving the effects of climate change, there are some people who argue that the best thing for our planet would be for the human game to falter. What do you say to that?
McKibben: The statement that “The earth will be fine; it’s the humans who are in trouble,” is technically accurate, but it is at its core quite wrong: the climate change we are currently forcing will be enormous in comparison with anything our civilization has ever known and it will fundamentally degrade the earth’s biology (Falter, 50).
Heather: And those changes carry with them other consequences, even beyond those that simply affect our species.
McKibben: Exactly.
Heather: Well, I certainly don’t believe that the solution to this problem is to do away with humans. But, if it’s us causing the problem, then how can we preserve the planet and the human game at the same time? I would love to hear your perspective on this, Dr. Jahren.
Jahren: Well, I think that we can have both, as long as we are willing to make some changes to our current lifestyle. For example, if all the fuel and electricity in use today were redistributed equally across the earth’s population, global per capita energy use would be equal to the average consumed in Switzerland during the 1960s. If, instead of waiting for this imaginary redistribution, the countries of North America, Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand reduced their energy use to that level now, total global energy use would plummet by at least 20 percent, as would carbon dioxide emissions (The Story of More, 168). There’s only one problem: driving less, eating less, buying less, making less, and doing less will not create new wealth (The Story of More, 169).
Heather: It would be difficult to inspire westerners, especially Americans, to aim for less. It seems that to fight climate change effectively, and in a timely fashion, we would need to undergo a major cultural shift.
Jahren: Certainly. Most of the want and suffering that we see in our world today originates not from Earth’s inability to provide but from our inability to share (The Story of More, 14).
McKibben: If I may jump in…
Heather: Of course, go ahead.
McKibben: I just want to point out that even our current conservation goals may not be enough. In late 2017 a study estimated that by 2050, even if the world manages to hit the Paris climate target of “only” a two-degree Celsius rise in temperature, a quarter of the earth would experience a serious drought and desertification (Falter, 62-63).
Heather: That is concerning, especially considering how much controversy there already is surrounding future U.S. involvement in the Paris climate agreement. That brings me to my next question. Dr. Attfield, for various reasons, many people don’t feel motivated to fight climate change. Why should they be?
Attfield: I’d be happy to answer that question. While action on climate change can readily be grounded in the self interest of the current generation, daily assaulted by the air-borne pollution as it is, there are multiple further grounds. Many people are being driven into exile from sea-level rise while increasing numbers have become victims of hurricanes, wildfires, and droughts of increasing frequency and intensity. Nor can we expect respite from these alarming tendencies. If too little is done, the next generation will have to undergo yet worse disruption, and their successors worse still. So even listeners with an anthropocentric stance (Social Ecologists included) have every reason to participate in campaigns for climate action. Biocentrists, however, have additional grounds, just as they have grounds for further kinds of species conservation (Environment Ethics, 119).
Heather: I think you make a great case, Dr. Attfield. But, I think that we need to address the fact that a sizable subset of the U.S. population still think that climate change is nothing more than a conspiracy.
Jahren: Unfortunately, Heather, it’s true that some people don’t think it’s real. Earth—the only thing we all share—has become a pawn in our political discourse, and climate change is now a weapon that can be hurled by either side. Down the road, it won’t matter what we do as much as it matters what we all do. We are all part of what is happening to the world, regardless of how we feel about it, regardless of whether we personally “believe” or “deny” (The Story of More, 170).
Heather: Well, I suppose there isn’t much that can be done about people who outright refuse to trust the data, apart from education. I agree that whether or not some people believe in climate change, the fight still needs to go on. It may be that our biggest barrier at present comes from those who simply don’t care what happens to the planet once they’re gone. How can we reach those people?
Attfield: There is a moral argument in favor of protecting future generations. If we care about human well-being in the present, we can hardly be indifferent to that of our children and grand-children after our own life times, as if our deaths would obliterate the moral universe (Environmental Ethics, 29). Some also argue that we have duties or responsibilities not only to particular individual people, but also towards whoever will be living in a certain region in a certain period of time, if we can affect the average quality of life that sets or groups of such people will enjoy (Environmental Ethics, 31).
Heather: Hopefully, arguments like those will convince more people that the right thing to do is to act now. With all of these challenges ahead of us, I still wonder whether or not the human game is nearing its end. Mr. McKibben, any final thoughts?
McKibben: I think that climate change is one of our greatest challenges. It may not be game-ending, but it seems set, at the very least, to utterly change the board on which the game is played, and in more profound ways than almost anyone now imagines. The habitable planet has literally begun to shrink, a novel development that will be the great story of our century (Falter, 21).
Heather: That is an understandable position to have. Dr. Jahren, it seems that you have some hope for the future of humanity. Is that true?
Jahren: Yes. Absolutely. I do believe that there is hope for us (The Story of More, 171). We are troubled, we are imperfect, but we are many, and we are doomed only if we believe ourselves to be. Our history books contain so much—extravagance and deprivation, catastrophe and industry, triumph and defeat—but they don’t yet include us. Out before us stretches a new century, and its story is still unwritten (The Story of More, 173).
Heather: This was a wonderful conversation, that I hope more and more people will continue to have. I don’t believe that the human game is over just yet, but the choices we make right now will ultimately determine the answer to that question. Once again, thank you Robin Attfield, Bill McKibben, and Hope Jahren for participating in this discussion.
10/15 Comment on Questions Oct 12-15
10/15 Comment on Questions Oct 12-15
Grand Total: 37 points
It ain't over 'til it's over, said wise old ballpark philosopher. But it's gettin' late (he also said) real early.
ReplyDelete