HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Global Warning - April 3, 2007 - Printable Version
- Apathy Is At Fever Pitch*
by Robin Buckallew
What happens when I say the words "Global Warming"? Collectively, I suspect, I get a yawn. Oh, not a big, obvious, open-mouthed yawn, but one of those polite, little yawns that you hide behind the hand so the speaker doesn't think the audience is being rude. For one brief, shining moment, global warming has had its place in the sun, and now, we go through the motions of outrage and disgust at our government's lack of innovative strategies for dealing with this impending tragedy, but we ourselves go about our everyday life, secure in the notion that Al Gore is on the job. Meanwhile, average Americans continue doing pretty much what they've done all along. Energy continues to flow through our electrical lines, and we continue to take it for granted, as we move effortlessly from room to room in a house lit with enough lights to throw a New Year's Eve party. We continue to drive alone in our climate-controlled cars, secure in the knowledge that someone else will take care of the global warming bit. We don't give much thought to changing the setting on our thermostats, and I haven't exactly seen a rash of clotheslines being erected in neighborhoods around town (or in any of the other towns I've been in, for that matter). We're all in a mad rush to do something -- but reducing greenhouse gases is not what we're in a rush to do. Express outrage? Yes. Propose abstract solutions that Congress should implement immediately? Yes. Point the finger of blame -- at George Bush, at Exxon-Mobil, at OPEC, at Dick Cheney? Yes. Change our own wasteful habits? Who, ME??? Wait a minute, I'm not the problem. After all, I bitch about it regularly don't I? I tell everyone I know that someone needs to do something about Global Warming. Yes, Ford -- they need to make an SUV that gets 26 mpg. Yes, Congress. They need to pass a law to make Ford make an SUV that gets 26 mpg. Yes, Bush. He needs to sign the law when Congress passes it to make Ford make an SUV that gets 26 mpg. Then, Congress needs to vote tax breaks for citizens who purchase the SUV from Ford that gets 26 mpg. When all that has happened, I'll go out, plunk down my hard earned $30,000, buy the SUV that gets 26 mpg, and drive it everywhere I go. THEN, we'll really be getting somewhere. Then, we'll have those greenhouse gas thugs on the run. We'll show 'em just who's boss.
Recently, I sent out a challenge to readers (and writers) on the Faulking Truth to join with me in ratifying Kyoto -- to pledge to reduce their own carbon emissions down to pre-1990 levels. I hoped this would lead to a groundswell of support from people who have publicly expressed their support on the message board for something being done by somebody. The response? The sound of a single hand clapping. To date, only five people have signed their pledge to alter their lifestyle, to make changes in the way they do things in an effort to contribute to the fight against global warming. It appears when it comes to personal sacrifice, the promise to change so much as a single light bulb is more commitment than most people are willing to make. This response has been consistent across all the levels of society with which I am in contact. The conversation that began following the recent release of "An Inconvenient Truth" was just the twittering of so many birds. Outrage? We're good at that. Action? We all become Maynard G. Krebs. There are two excuses I hear most frequently.
"I can't do much. My contribution wouldn't make much difference." This has been an article of faith for most people on most issues throughout history. One person can't change the world. I agree. In most cases one person CAN'T change the world. That shouldn't stop us from trying. As Montgomery Scott would say, "It may do no good, but perhaps it will show somebody on that planet just what a starship can do. Ay." I challenge you, gentle reader, to consider what the world would be like today if everyone said "one person can't change the world, so I'll just sit here on my duff and do nothing"? What if this had been the attitude of Rachel Carson? Rosa Parks? Martin Luther King, Jr.? Gandhi? Lech Walesa? Nelson Mandela? What if Al Gore were sitting back on his duff saying "one person can't change the world"?
"I'm waiting for someone else to start, then I'll join them." I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- who exactly are you waiting for? Does it have to be G W. Bush? Can't the few million people who've already started inspire you? Perhaps if Oprah took you on a tour of a house where the residents were using fluorescent light bulbs? Perhaps if someone staged Global Warming Survivor? Then, would you sign? Then, would you stop talking, and start doing something? You want someone to start? I've started. I've changed my lifestyle, and my emissions are already way below my 1990 levels. This hasn't led to a primitive, nasty, brutish, and short life for me (well, I can't really testify to the short yet -- it is totally possible that on my trip to the river tomorrow, I could get run over by an SUV, and be wiped out in my prime). OK, so I'm not Oprah, but I'm asking you to join me -- take a few baby steps first, then pretty soon you'll be walking the walk. It's not as hard as you might think.
One other thing I've started hearing lately is "Al Gore has a great big footprint. We shouldn't listen to him". I've seen those articles myself -- usually some sort of vague "someone" at "some think tank" calculated Gore's footprint (using what data they don't usually say -- did they have his electric bill in hand?), and found it was high. Such propaganda is pervasive, persuasive, and utterly pointless. Several of my students have asked me if it's true. I can't really answer that, since I don't know Al Gore personally. As I indicated, the articles are somewhat vague, leaving a lot of questions unanswered, mostly engaged in ad hominem challenges designed to destroy his credibility. There are two proper responses to this. The first response is to point out to the doubter that ad hominem attacks are a logical fallacy, and have no place in a serious argument. The second is to point out that, even if Al Gore has a large footprint, that doesn't speak to the truth or falseness of the message he is carrying. In the words of Sinead O'Connor, "They laugh because they know they're untouchable, not because what I said was wrong". If the science is sound (and it is), it doesn't matter if the message is carried by a saint or a sinner, by a virtuous paragon or a jerk. The real message behind this desperate attack on Gore�s credibility is this: "We have absolutely no substantial science behind our whining protests that could defeat the overwhelming evidence of your message, so we're going to kill the messenger". In short, he's being "Swift-boated".
In the final analysis, I hope the cobwebs of apathy that cover so many of us are just a phase (sort of like puberty). I hope it doesn't require catastrophe to overcome apathy. The consequences of waiting too long on this one might be just too great to be contemplated. I hope we all rise up, dust off the cobwebs, and join in a giant groundswell of commitment that will lead to real, substantial worldwide change. Meanwhile, until that day comes, I would like to thank James Robbins, Brian Thompson, M. Brewer, Susan B. and Amber for their pledge to make the needed changes to reduce their carbon footprint. The world needs more people like you.
*Title courtesy of Ian Hunter
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).