From the Mt. Pleasant, MI Morning Sun. Graphic by Anthony
WASHINGTON – There once was an Indianapolis concert featuring 50 pianos. Splendid instruments, pianos. Still, 50 might have been excessive.
As is today’s chorus summoning us to save the planet.
In the history of developed democracies with literate publics served by mass media, there is no precedent for today’s media enlistment in the crusade to promote global warming “awareness.” Concerning this, journalism, which fancies itself skeptical and nonconforming, is neither.
The incessant hectoring by the media-political complex’s “consciousness-raising” campaign has provoked a comic riposte in the form of “The Goode Family,” an animated ABC entertainment program on Wednesdays at 9 p.m. Eastern time. Cartoons seem, alas, to be the most effective means of seizing a mass audience’s attention. Still, the program is welcome evidence of the bursting of what has been called “the green bubble.”
Gerald and Helen Goode, their children and dog Che (when supervised, he is a vegan; when unsupervised, squirrels disappear) live in a college town, where T-shirts and other media instruct (“Meat is murder”), admonish (“Don’t kill wood”) and exhort (“Support our troops … and their opponents”). The college, where Gerald works, gives students tenure. And when Gerald says his department needs money to raise the percentage of minority employees, his boss cheerily replies, “Or we could just fire three white guys. Everybody wins!” Helen shops at the One Earth store, where community shaming enforces social responsibility: “Attention One Earth shoppers, the driver of the SUV is in aisle four. He’s wearing the baseball cap.”
The New York Times television critic disapproves. The show “feels aggressively off-kilter with the current mood, as if it had been incubated in the early to mid-’90s, when it was possible to find global-warming skeptics among even the reasonable and informed.”
That is a perfect (because completely complacent) sample of the grating smugness of the planet-savers, delivered by an entertainment writer: Reasonable dissent is impossible. Cue the pianos.
“The Goode Family” does not threaten Jonathan Swift’s standing as the premier English-language satirist. But when a Goode child apologizes to his parent for driving too much, and the parent responds, “It’s OK … what’s important is that you feel guilty about it,” the program touches upon an important phenomenon: ecology as psychology.
In “The Green Bubble: Why Environmentalism Keeps Imploding” (The New Republic, May 20), Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, authors of “Break Through: Why We Can’t Leave Saving the Planet to Environmentalists,” say that a few years ago, being green “moved beyond politics.”
Gestures – bringing reusable grocery bags to the store, purchasing a $4 heirloom tomato, inflating tires, weatherizing windows — “gained fresh urgency” and “were suddenly infused with grand significance.”
Green consumption became “positional consumption” that identified the consumer as a member of a moral and intellectual elite. A 2007 survey found that 57 percent of Prius purchasers said they bought their car because “it makes a statement about me.”
Honda, alert to the bull market in status effects, reshaped its 2009 Insight hybrid to look like a Prius. Nordhaus and Shellenberger note the telling “insignificance,” as environmental measures, of planting gardens or using fluorescent bulbs.
Their significance is therapeutic, but not for the planet. They make people feel better: “After all, we can’t escape the fact that we depend on an infrastructure – roads, buildings, sewage systems, power plants, electrical grids, etc. – that requires huge quantities of fossil fuels.
But the ecological irrelevance of these practices was beside the point.”
The point of “utopian environmentalism” was to reduce guilt. During the green bubble, many Americans became “captivated by the twin thoughts that human civilization could soon come crashing down – and that we are on the cusp of a sudden leap forward in consciousness, one that will allow us to heal ourselves, our society, and our planet. Apocalyptic fears meld seamlessly into utopian hopes.”
Suddenly, commonplace acts – e.g., buying light bulbs – infused pedestrian lives with cosmic importance. But: “Greens often note that the changing global climate will have the greatest impact on the world’s poor; they neglect to mention that the poor also have the most to gain from development fueled by cheap fossil fuels like coal. For the poor, the climate is already dangerous.”
Now, say Nordhaus and Shellenberger, “the green bubble” has burst, pricked by Americans’ intensified reluctance to pursue greenness at a cost to economic growth. The dark side of utopianism is “escapism and a disengagement from reality that marks all bubbles, green or financial.”
Re-engagement with reality is among the recession’s benefits.
George Will’s e-mail address is georgewill@washpost.com.
Read the complete column at the Morning Sun
Allan M (03:09:40) played: “Is this what stopped the apocalypse in its tracks?”
Play it again, Sam. Quick!
DaveF
we should buy the 12 volt ones because they’re energy-saving!
Which tells you all you need to know about the technical knowledge of the average journalist…
Oops, I can see a funny error of omission in the last part of my last post. What I meant to say was:
“The line between ‘respectable’ science journalism and calculated, self-serving falsehood, particularly on television, has been blurred into nonexistence in recent years…”
That should clear things up for anyone wondering what the hell I was driving at.
Further: I recently was moved to cancel my membership in the National Geographic Society, the reason being that they have taken up the hysteria: “the tipping point, Earth’s future in the balance” – outrageous childish hyperbole that sells magazines. Enough – they won’t get another dime out of me, and I mean even if they reverse the course they’re on now.
On this subject: has anyone seen any REAL scientists using this sort of hyperbole? To clarify: is there a single field biologist who is actually saying that we are rapidly approaching a tipping point from which there is no return for life on Earth and that it is the fault of human activity, like that flake Lovelock? I think this is an important point, and I have yet to see any evidence that anyone other than green NGOs, sensational authors, and journalists – ie. professional fear profiteers – is saying so.
I’ll be watching this thread for replies, thanks in advance for any good information.
@Michael Anderson:
Further: I recently was moved to cancel my membership in the National Geographic Society, the reason being that they have taken up the hysteria: “the tipping point, Earth’s future in the balance” – outrageous childish hyperbole that sells magazines. Enough – they won’t get another dime out of me, and I mean even if they reverse the course they’re on now.
Yes, sadly National Geographic is not the magazine it used to be, which was doing quality studies in geographic/anthropological exploration and presenting them to a broad audience. The old issues (pre-2000 or thereabouts) are still classics, of course.
I have heard marine biologists who have said alarmist things about the climate in the news media. I seem to remember even seeing a botanist on the news saying this sort of stuff some years back. Unfortunately I don’t have names for you. What I criticize them for is I don’t see how they can say what they say authoritatively. They can speak with authority about the effects of climate change on the species they study, though unfortunately even then they can be wrong. I used to often hear news about how the polar bears were threatened by climate change, but then I hear about official government studies that show that their population has actually grown over the last 30 years.
I’m always surprised to learn that a “scientist” (as they’re billed when they get on the news–just the generic moniker) says that AGW is causing worrisome climate change, and then when the text with their name appears it reveals what field of study they’re in, and it’s often not “climatologist” or “meteorologist”, but “marine biologist”, or some other field not related to atmospheric research.
It dismays me to see scientists get on the news and blatantly spew politically biased science. They do a disservice to their discipline.
Thanks very much for the reply Mark. I suspect that many “scientists’ – which can of course mean different things to different people – are heavily co-opted by green industry (I love saying that, first because it’s so obviously true, and also because its opposite is of course the first accusation leveled against skeptical technologists and scientists).
I think the fact that even a few years ago we didn’t see the now-HUGE money machine around environmental scare tactics that we do speaks volumes. I mean, it’s a fad, it’s a la mode, it’s the way right-thinking, aware people behave now. We have had the environmental movement for decades, and the reason it has maintained its relevance (and its employment rate) is by periodically starting a scare. Anyone in marketing knows how difficult it is to maintain the attention of their audience – thus the hyperbole. Not merely “you’ll lose the Fire-bellied Newt”, but “you, and your children, and everything you know and love on this planet are going to be annihilated unless you adopt right behavior – and put your money where we want you to.”
Here’s a nice quote I just received from my brother, well worth repeating here and anywhere there’s space to put it:
From the book “Stuff White People Like”:
“An interesting fact about white people is that they firmly believe that all of the world’s problems can be solved through awareness, meaning the process of making other people aware of problems, magically causing someone else, like the government, to fix it.
This belief allows them to feel that sweet self-satisfaction without actually having to solve anything or face any difficult challenges, because the only challenge of raising awareness is getting the attention of people who are currently unaware.”
Wikipedia censorship.
“A “guardian of the truth” on Wikipedia, the global internet encyclopedia, has been caught up in an embarrassing scandal after it was revealed that he created bogus online identities to change entries on the system.
David Boothroyd – a London councillor by day, a cyber policeman by night – has been forced to resign from Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee after his alias editing gave rise to a major conflict of interest. ”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wikipedia-sentinel-quits-after-using-alias-to-alter-entries-1698762.html
Let’s hope William Connolley is the next to be expelled.
It is getting hot on climate progress
@Michael H Anderson:
Thanks for the kind words.
Re: “what white people like”
I see what you’re saying. I’ve viewed the situation slightly differently. A lot of times young people talk about “changing the world”, but when you examine what their world view is like it’s heavily centered on the U.S. So that’s what they’re really talking about. The U.S. IS the “world” to them. There are exceptions, since there are plenty of young people who have travelled to foreign countries and experienced other cultures, so they understand a little about what the rest of the world is like, but this tends to be what I see.
Re: “green” is a HUGE money machine
Yes, I’ve been hearing that. Interestingly there are environmental activists who are not playing along. You don’t hear it often. It rarely comes up in the news, but it’s there if you listen for it.
Several years ago I started hearing complaints from them indirectly that windmills were killing birds, for example. More recently I’ve been hearing from them that solar power plants are going to take up huge swaths of land, and endanger animals and migration patterns. What idealists keep bumping up against is the cost/benefits that go with any change in technology. It’s not all cost-free.
Lately terms like “big wind” and “big solar” have been cropping up in environmental circles. Again this is muted, but it’s there if you listen for it. Some are seeing the money and power of the “green” movement and they’re wary of it.
Re: “We have had the environmental movement for decades, and the reason it has maintained its relevance (and its employment rate) is by periodically starting a scare.”
My first revelation about this was reading Glen Duncan’s book “Goodbye Green” some years ago. He basically says that the environmental movement started because of real issues that needed to be addressed, but once they were addressed, environmentalism became a political tool of certain groups that had nothing to do with what environmentalism started out with. It’s a good book to read for anyone who’s interested in the environmental movement. It’ll give one a “heads up” on what to expect.
The political Right has been piling on the environmental movement primarily because AGW has been its big issue. While I think they rightly criticize the basis for AGW, I think there’s still a place for environmental activists to do constructive work. I saw a Frontline documentary a little while back called “Poisoned Waters” that talked about pollution problems that have been cropping up in certain waterways on the coasts, like Chesapeake Bay, and it looks like sound analysis to me, not something that’s made up. It talked about what environmental organizations are trying to do to get political consensus on these issues, and interestingly they’ve had to resort to “diversionary tactics”, because most people in these areas are not interested in environmental impacts of pollution when it doesn’t directly affect them. Instead they’ll campaign on issues like urban congestion and noise pollution, real issues that those populations care about, but the real objective of those putting on the campaigns is to try to limit pollution from runoff. They openly talk about this in the doc.
Sometimes I’ve wondered if AGW is a similar “diversionary tactic” for some real issue, but I have yet to learn what that is. The closest I’ve come is I’ve heard occasionally that the oceans are getting more acidic due to increased concentrations of CO2, which is harming corral reefs. From the evidence it sounds like a real issue of concern, but I’m not sure we know the cause of the increased CO2 in the oceans either. My inclination is to believe it’s natural, but of course scientific analysis would need to be obtained to know for sure.
In any case I hate the way the AGW campaign is distorting science, regardless of the real agenda. What I worry about is what’s going to happen to the public image of science once it’s revealed and widely accepted (as I predict it will be one day) that AGW is pseudo-science as bad as the fraud that was “cold fusion”? Once government measures based on the idea are put in effect and people feel the negative effects of them, won’t this discredit science altogether in the public mind when this is revealed? That’s one of my worst fears, because then what replaces it? I can only think of superstition and irrational ideas as substitutes. I’d rather not see us return to Medieval thinking.
The documentary that I think really nailed AGW was “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, broadcast on the UK’s Channel 4 a couple years ago. A quote from it sticks with me. One of the scientists on the show said, “We like to think we live in an age of reason.” One of the points of the show is that we clearly do not.
It gives the history of the AGW theory and names names: who started it, who’s behind it now, and why, and what the IPCC really is (told by former IPCC members). The evidence the show discusses, what could really be driving climate, is compelling: The Sun, heck, the universe! After I saw it I thought “This makes sense!” The Earth is but a speck of dust compared to the size and power of the Sun, and is even less compared to influences in our own galaxy, so why wouldn’t they influence our climate? I’m not saying that it showed scientifically rigorous proof of what drives climate, but goodness it looks promising.
It also discusses the consequences of the anti-AGW policies on developing nations, which I think is a story that needs to be told.
So far I’ve heard only one complaint about the show from a scientist they used as a source. They used several scientific sources, so I think it still stands up well.
Maybe the answer to souls lies in Hinduism. Man is so much more moral and righteous today that more humans are making in back ’round the wheel as humans, and many animals are getting promoted (fewer animals, more humans)?
Maybe Gore can help things out by coming back as a “bull” frog?
I’ve viewed the situation slightly differently. A lot of times young people talk about “changing the world”, but when you examine what their world view is like it’s heavily centered on the U.S. So that’s what they’re really talking about.
Whereas I see the huge difference as the improved lives of the billions in India, China, elsewhere.
It also discusses the consequences of the anti-AGW policies on developing nations, which I think is a story that needs to be told.
Gosh, yes.
Here in Australia, Al Gore’s message is now being propagated to the masses via TV ads. On channel 10, there is an ad which shows black balloons popping out of any electical device, TV’s, lights, washing machines etc etc. Yes, that’s right black balloons!!!! What’s interesting is that all these black balloons appear to be significantly lighter than air, picture the last scene from the ad, a row of street houses with hundreds of black balloons soaring up into the sky. Now, if I recall my 5th grade chemistry, CO2 is not lighter than air, it’s the heaviest of all the other major constituent parts of air. So not only is this propaganda wrong, CO2 isn’t black (Buckey balls, C60, are black, thanks to all those arc welders), it’s colourless, and it’s heavier than air, and cannot possibly rise in air carrying it’s own mass as well as the mass of the balloon.
Anyway, facts don’t matter in the face of propaganda.
@Patrick Guinness:
You are right that CO2 is heavier than air. There’s a good video clip on CO2 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0cqsdIsFBU
It was produced by the BBC and surprisingly it doesn’t twist the science, but just tells it like it is. In one part the host of the segment holds two sets of balloons (interesting that Al Gore used balloons as symbols, isn’t it?). One has helium in it, and floats above her head. The other set contains CO2, and sinks to the ground. And she says, “It weighs TONS. It’s really heavy.” Another interesting part is she shows a group that was running some scientific experiments, seeing what effect increased CO2 levels had on plant growth. The results were conclusive: CO2 is not only essential to photosynthesis, but higher concentrations of CO2 increase photosynthetic action in plants. They show a couple examples of this principle in action. It’s undeniable. CO2 is a great plant fertilizer!
A video I found (at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrVEM3OdyRc) demonstrates the basics of photosynthesis. Notice in the chemical equation that for every molecule of CO2 that comes into photosynthesis an equal amount of oxygen is produced. So more CO2 now means a more oxygen-rich atmosphere in the future, and by the above example, more biomass.
Another short BBC video clip I found (at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgGnfYGomGo) shows that CO2 is essential for root growth in plants.
I think it’s real ironic that CO2 reduction is called “green”. If anything it’s ANTI-green!
Does anyone know how much CO2 an average tree absorbs /hour in average sunlight? People worried about CO2 should just plant more trees, or spread green alge over the oceans that will suck up CO2 like crazy. But global warming drama is not really about CO2 or climate at all is it?
Its about green derivatives aka gambling , making money out of nothing and control .