posted by Sheril R. Kirshenbaum
Since quoting Doug Adams, I've received some thoughtful emails from readers in northern and inland states asking whether they ought to be concerned about An Inconvenient Truth. Fair question. If sea level rise and warming temperatures appear to have little personal relevance, why worry? The series finale of The Sopranos is troublesome enough for the weekend.
This influx to my inbox got me thinking about social momentum..
The usual suspects (climate scientists) have been concerned for a long time as they've documented increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. More recently, economists and sociologists began to sound the alarm when everyone recognized the ways in which our environment and natural resources are intimately tied to socioeconomics.
And now according the World Monuments Fund, global warming is officially raining on another parade. The climate change phenomenon has been cited as a threat to humanity's architectural and cultural heritage around the world from whaling towns to deserts to holy sites. Thus, the time has come for historians and anthropologists to engage in the growing outcry.
Call me a Pollyanna, but perhaps the great warming does indeed have one redeeming quality. Maybe it's the ultimate unifying force we've been waiting for. A beast that does not adhere to man-made delineations because altered system dynamics traverse people and places in unprecedented ways. Never before has there been such pressure to recognize we are indeed a single worldwide population (yes, even you reader in Topeka, KS). And all this begs the question.. Can global warming be the impetus to acknowledge that despite differences, we are one collective human fingerprint on infinity? I certainly hope so.
Because if that's the case -- given the current climate of war, poverty, disease, and genocide -- we just might find solutions to more than we bargained for.
- Log in to post comments
A commonality in cause amongst the worldwide population will and should bring us together to help each other survive. Maybe a silly movie example comes to mind, Independence Day. But this is a very real problem. Dare we hope...
Okay, you're a Pollyanna. Happy?
It's more likely to divide us when we get down to actually arguing about what to do about it. Carbon caps and/or taxes? Heavy investment in genetically engineered plants that soak up carbon? (Risk genetic pollution?) Biofuels or push hydrogen? Different groups will be hurt in different ways no matter what we decide to do.
Just because we all recognize the same problem doesn't mean we will agree on the solutions. We are not exactly a single worldwide population, some people will pay more than others for our sins and the oil companies that are funding denial will probably figure out how to profit from it.
Perhaps for a brief moment before we all start arguing about what we are going to do about the problem and who pays most for our sins.
tony soprano and will smith get my attention a lot quicker than the IPCC
This 'Pollyanna'
Norm, you're right on in terms of the Great Warming being divisive as well as unifying - it was my hope someone would bring that up. Linda surprisingly referenced Independence Day - exactly what came to mind when composing this post.
The interesting question is which way will the pendulum swing? What will we humans do on this pleasant planet of ours? We still have a choice right now. This is a critical time and it's certainly not a passive course of action.
Although Bill's comment, simple and honest, is somewhat foreboding..
I can't see that responding to climate change will cause greater unity unless some major issues are settled, for example, should nations that have been profligate in their energy use be allowed to continue to have higher per capita use? If large numbers of people from low-lying areas (e.g. Bangladesh) need to be resettled, who should take the responsibility and where could they go?
On the other hand, I am encouraged by the increasing awareness of the rest of the world that is being shown.
Let's put it this way: Hurricane Katrina didn't hit Houston, but it affected Houston significantly becuase of the influx of envrionmental refugees from N'awlins.
So, Topeka (or wherever)...you wouldn't want thousands of environmental refugees from NYC or Miami permanently relocating to KS, would you? I sure as hell wouldn't.
Cliamte change affects us all, in different ways, at different speeds...but it affects us all.