In the spirit of PowerShift...
How do you make people REALLY
care about a future they'll probably
never see?
That's one of the big questions for me in the
whole global warming thing. I suspect we
haven't figured out the answer, otherwise
there might not be (quite) so much trouble getting
certain of the developed nations onboard
with making serious efforts to curb their carbon
emissions and to adopt more environmentally
friendly infrastructures.
With the more unpleasant projections of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) looking all the way ahead to 2100,
when many of us probably won't be around
anymore, the usually-reliable self-interest
argument can't come into play with much
effectiveness. Especially (but not only) for
those of us who remain unconvinced that we
will be Judged by a Higher Power after our
lives on this planet and/or identify as moral
skeptics in some sense or another, it's hard to
be totally certain why we shouldn't just enjoy
and accumulate as much as we can while
we're here, and let the future take care of itself.
Maybe we can worry about our own children,
but after that, hard to care, right?
Not that just finding it "hard to care" means
we shouldn't do our utmost to go green. But
people being as we are, knowing what we
"should" do in a moral sense doesn't always
overlap with actually feeling compelled to do
it. I do think we (America, the West, whoever)
should make an effort to cool the planet down,
but I'm not sure I can give you reasons that I
find "objectively" convincing. (I found that bit
with the CG polar bears in An Inconvenient
Truth depressing; I like trees; I hate summer
heat; disaster movies freaked me the hell out
when I was younger...)
OK, yes, if we fail to act, future generations
will pay dearly. On an intellectual level, I'm
sure most parents and would-be parents are
struck by this. But it still doesn't seem to be
translating into a punch in the gut that says
"DO SOMETHING!" Neither does the occasional
rattling off of statistics about the extinction
of various species. When I learn of
such things, I feel distantly disturbed, but I'm
fairly sure that we just aren't built to be able to
really grasp the ecological repercussions AND
link them, in our heads and hearts, to those extinctions
(and to the ways in which we're
causally responsible).
It would be convenient to be able to blame
the Bush administration for careless disregard
of scientific authority like that of the IPCC,
but important things are rarely that simple, and
besides, each of us can do our part--but not
everyone does. And I won't take the supercynical
route of ranting about how scientific
evidence is ignored by those concerned only
with a financial bottom line. It seems, after all,
that the smarter of such people are beginning
to realize the opportunities presented by green
technologies. But they, and the relative handful
of activists whose wherewithal and work
ethic match their passion, are still shining exceptions
to rules of sloth and stubbornness.
So rather than just a matter of rhetorical
convincingness, I think a lack of true comprehension
is at work here. If we cannot see
and hear and feel the dire future probably in
store for our descendants if we fail to save
the world, then can we ever understand, in a
manner sufficiently gut-wrenching and asskicking,
what all those scientific projections
mean? If the future is not ours, can we bring
ourselves to give a damn about it?
I sure hope so. But I don't know why.