|
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
Essays |
| ||
|
Published on Thursday, June 27, 2002 by
Inlet.org
The Climate Crisis
Somebody at the end of a Washington environmental
organization's press conference recently asked the question: how do we create an
"emotional consensus" in support of efforts to address global warming?
Nobody had an adequate answer, but the question was exactly the right one.
Another recent C-Span moment recorded journalist Bill McKibben's comment that
climate change "is the first morally compulsory, urgent issue since the Civil
Rights movement."
Urgent, and a moral issue-- exactly right as well.
Right now there is no emotional consensus, no sense of a moral issue.
Yet climate change is emerging as the defining context of this century.
Scenarios extrapolated from the most modest temperature rise predicted by major
scientific organizations foresee large scale human suffering, disease and death,
economic disruption and ecological disaster. Scenarios based on the higher end
imply mass extinctions, the end of civilization and planetary life as we know it
on this earth.
It is hard to imagine a greater crisis, yet climate change is not an urgent
issue in the U.S. Part of the reason is that this case simply hasn't been made
in emotional and moral terms.
A lot of attention has been paid to getting the science right, and to refuting
criticism of that science. News has mostly focused on details of treaties and
legislation, and scattered reports of effects reputed to be caused by global
warming (and then rightly or wrongly refuted.) In other words, from the public
point of view, it's been boring and confusing.
Still, at least some information has made its way into the American mind. But
there is no sense of urgency. Americans were more worried about Alar on their
apples than they are about climate change. There is no real consensus on the
stakes. That must change.
Political leaders can't get traction on this issue without public alarm. There
are private interests with huge amounts of money and lots of influence opposing
efforts to address climate change. As usual, all that can offset them enough to
provide leverage for policymakers is public interest, and in this case, a public
sense of urgency.
What is needed now goes beyond negotiating mitigation that tries to satisfy both
technical and political requirements and winds up doing not enough of either. It
goes beyond policy wonking and bureaucratic infighting. It even goes beyond
attachment to pet issues, or pushing the usual emotional buttons to work people
up to contribute to a campaign fund or flood a congressional office with emails.
It requires imagination and concentration. It requires real information told in
dramatic and comprehensible ways. It requires commitment to doing it until it is
done.
The stakes are very high, for this is an issue like no other.
That Civil Rights laws weren't passed when proposed in 1948 was tragic, but not
fatal to the cause. The Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, and America has
benefited ever since. It was too late for some, but not for all. But if halting
the acceleration of climate change is postponed, future efforts may simply be
too late for everyone. Terrible and perhaps fatal effects will accelerate
inexorably, no matter what treaties are then signed. Americans are used to being
able to fix things at the last moment. What will happen when they can't?
In truth, no one can invent a moral issue or create an emotional consensus. But
we can provide the spark and start the process by doing the best possible job of
framing the issues with clarity and urgency, using the full range of tools
available. To start thinking about such an effort, this is what I propose:
1. One big voice -- Existing environmental organizations must form a coalition
organization or choose one of their number to run this campaign, but it must be
a single voice and a single place the public knows to go to for information,
linking with the appropriate other sources. A costly campaign will require a
concentration of resources, so money should be channeled to one source.
Publicity efforts should be part of a coordinated campaign with the same logo,
slogans, and identifiable faces and/or voices in ads.
2. Don't say 'global warming'-- Turn up the heat on terminology. In fact
entirely new terms are needed. I believe one of the reasons that global warming
and climate change aren't considered urgent is that the words 'global warming'
and 'climate change' have no urgency. Though 'warming' might describe a
dangerous incremental rise in temperatures, the word itself has mostly good
connotations. It's warm & cuddly. Happiness is a warm puppy. Listen to the warm.
Can I warm up that coffee? Let's give a warm welcome to...
It takes a counterintuitive leap to think of "warming" as a bad thing. Even as a
negative, it is at best, lukewarm. Nothing merely "warm" is urgent, especially
in a negative sense. You may urgently desire a warm coat on a cold day, but
people don't feel too warm. They feel too hot. Then it's urgent.
Global warming was a dubious improvement over the term it replaced, 'the
greenhouse effect.' A useful metaphor to describe what happens when there's too
much CO2 in the upper atmosphere, it is otherwise pretty abstract and definitely
not scary. To most people, greenhouses are good. Flowers grow in them. They're
pretty. The greenhouse effect sounds like it might make the whole world
prettier.
There's been a recent move to the term "climate change," but it's too neutral:
change can be good, and if the weather is too hot or too cold where you live,
you might welcome a change. A better choice is "climate crisis." Ross Gelbspan
uses it in the subtitle of his book, The Heat Is On: The Climate Crisis, the
Cover-up, the Prescription. Crisis projects urgency. He also uses "heat" rather
than "warming." Until even better terms are found, everyone involved should talk
about "global heating" and "the climate crisis."
And if you don't think words have anything to do with it, think about the
difference between anti-abortion and pro-life, or between pro-abortion and
pro-choice. Few remember the language of a single subsection of the Civil Rights
Act. They remember "I have a dream today."
3. Bring out the big guns and give them something imaginative to do. Use
Hollywood faces and voices, send them places where something can be shown that
indicates the effects of global heating. Send Julia Roberts to interview an
Inuit elder on camera about the change in Arctic ice and weather patterns, and
the effects on the animals and plants. Take an action hero to high altitudes,
take Mariel Hemingway up to Mt. Kilimanjaro and measure the snow, and some
swimsuit models to an island that will disappear under the water because of
global heating.
Make this a moral issue. Get the Dalai Lama on camera-he is well aware of these
issues. Get Nelson Mandella and Vaclev Havel-get the most articulate and morally
respected people in the world. Get religious leaders of all faiths, and send
this to where the Civil Rights movement got so much energy and force-the
churches. Get Captain Kirk and Captain Picard. There won't be a future unless
this is addressed.
5. Be relentless and build momentum. Get some billionaires to pay for relentless
TV ads. There must be a few with consciences and consciousness. Do TV and radio
programs and web sites, and urge existing TV shows to do something on it. Start
by reframing the issue with urgency. Add details (what will happen, where and
when.) Get new people on board and in front of the camera.
6. Start now. This campaign should be planned now, and the funds solicited to
start it. The year after the 2002 congressional elections will be critical to
getting the issue on every candidate's agenda in 2004.
Only if this becomes a priority issue, a moral issue, and an emotional consensus
starts to develop, can any presidential candidate offer anything prominent and
bold.
Such a focus can work partly because the groundwork has been prepared. There's
been grassroots activity and education that has increased awareness. There is
now enough science to make the claims of a crisis more than credible, and there
are many ideas for solutions, so it all doesn't sound hopeless.
What is needed now is the "emotional consensus", the sense of a moral necessity,
a cause. I believe it is the responsibility of the environmental community and
its organizations to lead first of all by example, by giving this issue their
priority and focus, not in the ordinary way, but by going all out to involve the
public in a moral crusade to save the world.
I am an author and otherwise an underemployed writer with no power or influence
and few connections. All I can do is offer these ideas in whatever way I can to
people who can make things happen.
William Severini
Kowinski is the author of the book
|
|||
|
Hosting provided by FSTV |
|
