Bill McKibben's EAARTH explores climate change, the reasons for our inaction, and possible responses that might prevent social and ecological disaster. While there are many possible responses to his arguments, our discussion in class will focus on the intersections between climate change, political action, and forest history. We will discuss: How can an understanding of forest history help us grapple with the issues McKibben raises? Does history make us more hopeful, or less?
Please post your thoughts about Eaarth as comments to this post, by 11:30 Monday morning before our meeting. Thanks!
Prof. Langston
Testing comments. Prof. Langston
ReplyDeleteIn his alarming jeremiad, Eaarth, Bill McKibben confronts us with a difficult conundrum. On the one hand he employs historical analysis to help explain how we arrived at our present climate crisis. On the other, he maintains that this very crisis is unprecedented in human history—indeed that the very Earth upon which it is playing out is a different, wildly unpredictable planet (Eaarth, 2). We find ourselves on unfamiliar (and frightening) terrain. Therefore, we tread on thin ice when we seek to discover reassuring lessons from the past or even to ground ourselves by trying to comprehend the dynamics of past environmental change. Nevertheless, I believe that an understanding of forest history provides both important baselines for the material changes that forests have undergone in different places and periods, and also sheds light on how people have responded to past crises. Historical ecologists, utilizing a wide range of methods, from palynology and archaeology to analyzing old land surveys, are developing models of increasing sophistication to reconstruct the composition and variability of forests deep in the past. Environmental historians, meanwhile, have explored how people have responded to changes they have wrought in the world’s woodlands. For example, Richard Grove, in his book Green Imperialism, reveals how European naturalists in the employ of colonial enterprises in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and elsewhere documented the devastating effects of deforestation on rainfall and climate. In certain instances, they were quite successful in convincing colonial regimes to adopt conservation measures. Of course, as McKibben points out, modern societies have ramped up resource extraction, industrial production, and pollution to such degrees that it’s hard to see how we will “cut our fossil fuel use by a factor of twenty,” which the author deems crucial for survival of civilization on “Eaarth” (184).
ReplyDelete--John Suval
I think an understanding of forest history is one tool among many that we will need to utilize to address the new Eaarth. We have history to be a model for us in so many incidences. We can see how agriculture affected forested areas by eliminating trees that consume CO2, introducing monocultures, and edges that generate the ideal environment for invasive competing plants. On the other hand, clearing space for agriculture has fed people and made peoples lives more convenient. There are good and bad things that come from all decisions that we make. Having a history is like performing experiments over and over again and being able to use that data to make smarter decisions for our future.
ReplyDeleteBut, having the historical revelations from our collective past does not guarantee we will make the right decisions armed with that knowledge. So, asking if history makes us more hopeful is a very individual question. We can be very hopeful if we take the knowledge we’ve gained from the past and realize the critical place we are in presently. We then need to use what has worked in the past and drop the part of the experiment that hasn’t worked.
And, speaking of hope- I had a bit of a problem with McKibben’s blithe dismissal of the change that happened in the 70’s, because that is a time period that gives me hope. My partner and I both were in high school during this period and we both admitted that we cannot adjust the thermostat in our home without thinking of Jimmy Carter. But, McKibben poo-pooed the change that happened then by saying “we fixed a few relatively easy environmental problems, like smog, filth leaking into our rivers” and that “Lake Erie wasn’t burning anymore.” An entire Great Lake stops routinely burning because of changes that happened during this time period, and this is “relatively easy”? That seemed to say a lot to me about his attitude and it affected the way I read the rest of the book. I instinctively knew he wasn’t exaggerating our dilemma, but I wondered what it would take for him to feel that we were moving in the right direction to resolve our predicament.
Dee Finnegan
This doesn't look like it posted the first time, but if it did and it shows up twice: sorry!
ReplyDeleteI think John had a good point in bringing up historical ecology--McKibben belabors the global magnitude of climate change (and rightly), but a lot of those changes will show up on smaller scales: the size of a forest, for example. And while what happened to forests in smaller past changes might not be applicable on a worldwide scale, they might be applicable on smaller scales, at least for a time. So while knowing the forest history of one particular place might not be helpful in that place once that place is a shiny new desert, it might be helpful in understanding and managing the new, similar forest that's going to grow ten degrees up in that climate's new location. Plus, there are questions like: what happens to a forest when wind patterns shift, when preciptation amounts shift, when there's periodic flooding—all of which McKibben brings up as consequences of climate change, and all of which could potentially be addressed by forest history.
Also, one of the key issues McKibben raises is the need for localized food production. This is going to mean farms in places where there haven't been farms before, and while that doesn't tie into forest history a lot for New York City, it will for more spread-out areas. Even in terms of how closely can agriculture and forests intertwine and maintain separate species diversity, etc, forest history could help us manage that issue, assuming that we continue to feel that maintaining forests is important. Plus, of course, McKibben brings up wood as a biofuel, meaning tree farms, and understanding the historical impacts that various ways of managing forests as crops has had will be important if we want to do that on a large scale in the future.
I think one thing McKibben didn't directly address much, but that people might wonder about (or that I wonder about, anyway) is the role of large-scale forest preservation in climate change. Forest history, and the ways people interact or would like to interact with trees and forests in their daily life, would be important in considering whether forests should be preserved or expanded as part of climate change mitigation.
As a side note, while I understand McKibben's point, I wasn't able to take the idea of renaming the planet seriously, and I was even more dubious when his list of potential renames included ок(к)учивать, which looked more like a verb to me, so google translate/Russian wikipedia to the rescue: Земля is our home planet. Now I'm both slightly suspicious and confused. I hope someone in the class actually speaks Russian and can comment.
Erin
Aside from a brief mention of tropics expanding two degrees of latitude and the effect of semiarid regions' expanse on ecosystems like forests, the renaming of the U.S. Forest Service to the U.S. Fire Service and how harvesting manure for old agriculture practices might impractically increase forest clearing, McKibben fails to go into any real depth on how forests are directly being affected by climate change and how we might be able to better brace ourselves for the inevitable doom and gloom by learning from our past mistakes in forest history, or at least in using the past to consider possible future scenarios. McKibben is so focused on our being past the point of no return that I think he knowingly fails to rally any last pitch honest efforts to correct our mistakes, particularly those based in historical context since the mere thought alone would require more time than any of us (and definitely not our grandchildren) has on Eaarth.
ReplyDeleteBut, book criticisms aside, in his final chapter of Eaarth, “Lightly, Carefully, Gracefully,” McKibben argues in favor of new technologies that embrace natural cycles—local wood-fired power plants, solar panels in China or the feasibility of the internet as a major recycling tool. Reading this chapter, I made an immediate connection to Carolyn Merchant's 1979 The Death of Nature which I recently revisited for another class. I won't bore all with the gritty details of the similar arguments, other than to say that in it, she details the gruesome English timber exploitation of the 17th century and how the forest depletion led to the explosion of the coal industry there. She writes, “As in the 17th century, we must now look to alternative forms of energy,” suggesting coal still as a choice then, as it was for the British before. Ironically, thirty years after The Death of Nature was published, we are again (or still), in a similar predicament of needing to shift energy sources due to exploitation. However, perhaps this example in particular can be a positive lesson learned from forest history as we have the opportunity to avoid the mistake that would be converting again to a more heavily coal-based economy in lieu of no more oil in order to hang on to our ingrained mega consumption ways a bit longer. Erin, I would argue that knowing the forest history of one particular place in this sense can be very helpful as similar shifts here are obligatory (though for different exhausted resources).
Merchant also mirrors McKibben's argument for a return to simplicity, away from growth: “Another [option], alien to an age wedded to the ideology of progress, is to return to the renewable resource economy of the preindustrial period: water, sun and wood.... to develop technologies that harmonize with natural cycles rather than exploit resources.”
(continued) This idea draws questions as to what that returned state would look like. If our values shifted entirely today, away from oil and all further exploitation central to maintaining our current energy consumption habits—that is to say if our values entirely changed and instead, our sole focus became renewable energy, the map would be redrawn in a heartbeat. The most highly desirable, or valued resources always find their way into the hands of the most powerful groups... So, though McKibben's idea of returning to this natural, renewable state sounds great on paper, he fails to discuss how renewable energy will look in the hands of big corporation and big government, when it does, inevitably, get into their hands. He prefers instead to focus only on an imagined, decentralized fantasy world where the small players are rewarded. He writes, “It will get much easier as the examples start to multiply, so that we begin to shake off our idea that energy is something that comes from a distance,” citing the Middlebury College wood-fired power plant as an example. I would argue that as these technologies emerge and as all our other options (oil) run out, big business will again push out (not reward) the smaller players and marginal groups in an effort to gain access to this wood, sun and water.This will likely only further the notion of energy from afar as local projects are stamped out. Call me pessimistic but in using the past to consider the future, I think at least one huge change to consider is: whose hands will new resources fall into, how will they be managed and who will be left out?
ReplyDeleteErin, regarding the Russian, I was also curious while reading so I asked my boyfriend (who's Russian). He laughed at it, saying it absolutely does not fit with the other suggested new Earth names McKibben lists. In his words, “ок(к)учивать is the process of using a garden tool to shuffle the earth around the roots of a plant in order to improve circulation.” So, I don't know...your guess is as good as mine!
-Stevie Sigan
I thought McKibben’s focus on being past the point of no return is an effective way to attempt to instill a sense of urgency in our society. That urgency might cause enough incentive for people to change their everyday habits in hopes of curtailing climate change. Eaarth made me feel even more frustrated that the small group of people who work to discredit climate change are able to create the perception that there is still some debate about its cause.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I agree with Stevie that McKibben is living in a “decentralized fantasy world” when discussing the future of generation and distribution of energy. History tells us that big corporations will be in control of the creation and distribution of power, whether it is from renewable or conventional sources. McKibben did mention that the government would have to stop allowing tax breaks and subsides to the big corporations, but he did not talk about what government initiatives would have to take place to force big companies to give up control of the energy market.
Our current reliance on centralized power makes it nearly impossible for dynamic, intermittent power sources to be integrated into the grid. Citizens will never be able to sell generated power from personal solar panels or windmills back to local utilities if the government does not fully subsidize the creation of smaller points of entry into the grid. McKibben also talked about the benefit of having advanced meters in every home to monitor energy usage. Again, I did not understand who he thought should pay for them, either utilities themselves or if the state should subsidize them.
-Sam Reuter
Bill McKibben does not address forests or world forest history directly in his prescriptions for how to live more “lightly, carefully, gracefully” on our tough new planet Eaarth, but I found it relatively easy to extrapolate how his suggestions would reflect positively on forest conservation. Not only would his plans to live in a more communitarian, small-scale society help conserve energy through investment in sustainable energy sources and a focus on local food, but it would make citizens of that community much more invested in the land that they inhabit. It appeared to me that McKibben is promoting a transformation of space into place – as geographers like to say – and that is a movement I can definitely get behind.
ReplyDeleteAs for how this solution would affect forests, I think that this compassion for the natural world that would be fostered by becoming invested in one’s own community is exactly what needs to happen in order to end massive exploitation of the natural world. And yes, Stevie and Samantha, I really agree that this notion of building a movement based on almost literal tree-hugging and reverence for our Ea(a)rth is rather delusional. But, looking back at the history that McKibben provides, I think that it is evident that the U.S. has only gotten to its current exploitative state due to a disconnect between people and the natural world they inhabit. So, as I expressed today in class, I remain somewhat incredulous about the ability for McKibben’s suggestions to fully address the global warming catastrophe our planet faces, I still do receive some romantic comfort from them, and I think that natural places, like forests, could really stand to benefit from them.
I also think that John brought up a really good point in his assertion that “we tread on thin ice when we seek to discover reassuring lessons from the past,” especially when it comes to analysis of unprecedented effects of human-induced global warming! It will certainly be a challenge in the upcoming years of our rapidly changing Ea(a)rth to discover how best to manage the natural resources we have left. But, as Dee said in her response, “there are good and bad things that come from all decisions that we make,” and I think that one of the biggest messages of this book is the point that any decision that we make to address the issue of climate change is better than no decision at all.
-Annie Johnson
I really liked all of the facts about global climate change in McKibben's book. I think that at a later point I will actually reread some chapters to take in all of what he says about the changes happening. As someone new to the eco/history of forests, and the environmental sciences I find it very fascinating. I do agree with the concept of the new 'Eaarth' term coined by McKibben's in that we don't have the same planet that we used to have and unfortunately it will take a while for most in the U.S. middle class and in richer nations to feel the impact of the shift. I am familiar with social sciences and in studying social effects of climate change and I really appreciated a book that was interdiciplinary in a sense because it addressed the changes in the earth and what it might mean as the global impact on people and governments. I was especially fascinated by the way the new world will potentially have to contend with borders in environmental changes that impact millions of people. For example, McKibben mentions how the eradication of the rainforest directly affects the U.S. Midwest weather and how we are all connected in a globe that does not adhere to borders and politicians and that does not 'compromise' politically. I do know that many millions of people will be affected and it is already happening...I also know of many people from marginalized and disenfranchized communities are exchanging knowledge too. I do know the urban farmers movements in Los Angeles ghettos and in the Oakland 'hood' and have lived in both. I have been a part of that movement and have many friends who are working for food and health justice in poor communities so that people can have organic and fresh food and learn about gardening. I also know that in the innercity there is a lot of work with indigenous peoples too coming in and teaching and sharing knowledge of land cultivation. I also remember protesting the closing of the south central farm in L.A. and spending the nights on the concrete outside them with others after they got bulldozed. It was a sad event.
ReplyDeleteMy critic comes in when McKibben begins to explain the 'American' sense of expansion without including native peoples concept of land, colonization and how that complicates American history. He mentions Jefferson and Washington but fails to mention how they were part of the aristocracy who bought large portions of land from the 'black market' illegally to later redistribute that land and exploit the prices. McKibben fails to mention how slavery was a integral part of the creation of U.S. wealth and also the way in which I feel class separated themselves as those who owned the land and those who worked it. I don't have everything all mapped out myself on this topic but leaving multiple perspectives out of explaining the concept of U.S. greed and expansion is sort of an easy way out for folks who don't want to feel so 'bad' about how the U.S. is so productive because of its 'cronic addiction' of exploiting certain people in the U.S. and in countries all over the world and how this human exploitation has contributed to the creation of our new less hospitable planet. Another very interesting thing that he can include in his next version of the book is commentry on the ways in which the UN has recognized indigenous populations all over the world in 2007, (see indigenousportal.com) and how we can integrate new concepts of land from these first peoples into environmental movements. He does mention small farmers across the globe in his last chapter and comes close to this at different points but for the U.S. a shift to small farms does not come without fights over who owns the land, resources, and in the near future 'water'. ****This is my frusteration in finding how much the U.S. has participated in destroying the earth in so little time***I don't meant this seriously but part of me wants an easy way out or explanation too and to say outloud, "Since the U.S. has failed so miserably, Why not just hand over the land back to native americans and let them decide? Not that it would be a perfect utopia but perhaps the land of the U.S. shouldn't be entrusted to our congress, or elected officials. They have done enough damage..." I know that the average American doesn't like to be reminded of the illegitimacy of our government but the problem is 'who are we to trust to run the nation?'; There are also so many pitfalls on every road to understanding solutions. I know its not that simple and in all of my classes I look forward to soon learning more about complicating this intertwined history, ecohistory and environmental science because I really feel that on this new earth there needs to be new ways of concieving 'nation', 'borders', and especially the distribution of natural resources with my biggest interest being water and land. I am only left with more questions after reading this book which is good for now.
ReplyDeleteDiana Carreon
Feb 1, 2011.
After reading this book I was disappointed. I felt the same way about this book as I have felt about other books and articles I have read on global warming. McKibben piles on fact after fact about how the world is screwed, and at the end offers unrealistic solutions. I find this a recurring trend in books on global warming. People tend to give the reader fact after fact and doomsday scenarios, but I have never come to the end of one of these books or articles where there have been plausible solutions. I disagree with Samantha that this approach gives people a sense of urgency. To me when I read these types of books I get a feeling of, if the world is already this far gone then does it really matter anymore. I find this extremely frustrating, because I do know that it matters, but when I read books like this it gives me a sense of hopelessness. I also think that this book is not going to do anything to affect the people who do not believe in global warming or are on the fence.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that Mckibbben is living in a “decentralized fantasy world.” The idea that we could fix the problems that he lists in the first part of the book by relying on local power and food seems unrealistic at best. To start out, having the space and land to support that type of society is not realistic in the world we have created. With so many people living in megacities around the world what are they going to do? Does everyone abandon those cities? And then what happens when people are trying to grow food locally on unfertile soil? Do we resort to using fertilizers and then pesticides and insecticides to fight off the insects and invasive species that are supposed to come with global warming? Mckibben’s solution does not go very far, and does not answer the issues he raised in his own book.
Katie Patten
Eaarth, it has already changed, it will never again be the Earth our ancestors knew. As McKibben points out, it is the same planet, only it will never look or behave as it once did. The first third of his book brings together so much data and information that it is overwhelming and depressing, but I thought it was very effective. So often we hear of singular events or statistics focused on only one or two things changing, to have it all at your fingertips in a condensed version is beyond useful. Anytime I want to read more about a particular event, all I have to do is flip to McKibben’s notes section and find the source.
ReplyDeleteMoving from the doom to the solutions, I think McKibben brings up good options for those of us who want to make a change. As Stevie and Sam discussed – decentralization! I wish to focus on is the decentralization of our industrial agricultural systems. In 2004, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson said, “I, for the life of me, cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply, because it is so easy to do.” I agree with him, we cannot always rely on a centralized, fossil fuel driven agricultural system, because if something did happen to it, what would we do? Americans need to act, and it needs to start with us, the government, people with power, are not going to do anything until they see how important it is to all of us, until they see us shift our lifestyles.
In Michael Pollan’s article “Why Bother?” in the New York Times, he explained his reaction to Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” as, “The immense disproportion between the magnitude of the problem Gore had described and the puniness of what he was asking us to do about it was enough to sink your heart.” I think the same can be said of our entire class; who didn’t immediately react this way to the apparent disconnect between the problem and McKibben’s proposed solution? True, it seems dishearteningly small and I know the phrase, “why bother?” crossed my mind, but I can’t just sit around and do nothing. If each of us makes a change and convinces our friends, family, coworkers, neighbors to make a change and this continues, then perhaps those with power will start to notice.
I see McKibben’s call to action as the start of a movement. I believe he directed his book towards those of us he believed would and could begin this environmental movement. More will certainly need to be done, but it needs to start somewhere.
~Hanna Engevold
2/2/2011
McKibben has taken on a daunting but absolutely necessary task in asking for a call to action. As far as global climate change is concerned, I think the key to actually achieving a call to action is to find a balance between scaring people enough and giving people the hope that a real difference can still be made. Now, the point in scary facts is to instill that sense of severity and urgency of the situation to get people to act fast. But, this of course has to be balanced to avoid a sense of hopelessness. The point is not to have people give up.
ReplyDeleteI felt that the first third of the book was indeed frightening, reinforcing the immense pressures our current Eaarth is facing. I was frightened, overwhelmed, angry, depressed, and hopeless after reading that section. These are not emotions conducive to an effective call to action. You need hope, and I think that is why McKibben chose to take a step back and present small solutions to address much bigger problems. After reading the final chapter, “Lightly, carefully, gracefully,” I had a temporary sense of hope. His stories of local gardens and living neighborly were warm and inspiring. I wanted to “do my part,” but the problem was that I could not keep myself from thinking and knowing that this is not enough. Doing those things is a step in the positive direction, but a baby step at best.
McKibben was not, of course, saying that these minor changes in the American lifestyle were going to “fix” our problem, but rather they could slow the rate of damage we are inflicting. Damage is inevitable at this point, but our actions can make the current and quickly changing climate tolerable and survivable…at least for a little while. Overall, after reading Eaarth, I’m not left feeling too empowered, but still left wanting to do something. This is a start, I guess.
--Amanda
Although McKibben didn't thoroughly/explicitely discuss a relationship between forest history and the daunting effects of climate change, he clearly raises the point that all actions (human-caused and nonhuman-caused) is interconnected. Understanding forest history helps us examine and evaluate our relationships with forests and how that related to things like politics, social movements, environmental movements, etc in order to potentially act for more desirable outcomes.
ReplyDeleteMcKibben's book, while very pessimistic, does send the message that if we can learn from our actions even in the recent past that we do have the ability to have some level of control as to how our future environment affects our species and the world's existence as a whole. His quoted quote that "far more people take care of each other than take advantage of each other" struck me as optimistic but true, and I just hope that as a species humans can apply this to the environment as well. We have to come to an understanding that we are a product of our environment, both literally and figuratively, and it would serve our species well to treat our surroundings with a little more understanding and respect.
-Sara L
Oops I thought I had this up on Wed-
ReplyDeleteBill McKibben uses a lot of powerful, vivid words to tell the story in this book. Words pop out and make an impression in my mind. And it is not so much the word on its own, but it’s the contrast between certain words and ideas that McKibben sets up in his stories. For example, we come across Excessive, Growth, Peak, More, Big, Bigger. Then, in contrast, we have words such as Maintain, Improve, Keep, Repair, Lightly, Carefully, Gracefully. This whole theme of contrast, differences, and change is built up around the Earth versus Eaarth idea. What I got out of this book is that humans have had a significant impact on the planet, and in order to continue life here, we need to significantly change our attitudes and behaviors.
The history of the world’s forest is very much wrapped in with Bill McKibben’s book Eaarth. Throughout history - changing attitudes, technology, and global connections have impacted forests. Studying these phenomena of human impact and environmental change, specifically in the context of forest history, would help us grapple with the issues that McKibben raises. I think we would see a lot of overlap in the history of forest change and the history of other environmental issues. As we explore forest history in more depth, I hope to explore both cases of failure, and cases of success. As far as hopefulness goes from studying history, I think it can go either way. On one hand, in hindsight, repeating failures and cycles become apparent. This to me is really discouraging, because it shows we did not learn from what already took place. On the other hand, often you come across stories of change and success.
I can certainly empathize with Katie’s disappointment after reading Eaarth. I agree that he presented solutions that did not seem very feasible. After the explosive beginning of the book (explosive, in that a new issue was addressed about every other paragraph,) the second half of the book left me feeling like it just wasn’t enough.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the problem here is lack of analysis. Listing problems in the beginning of the book and trying to provide solutions at the end does not seem to work. The reader is so distressed by the beginning of the book, that he/she is not mentally prepared to comprehend solutions. Someone may begin to wonder if some of the facts are false, and then he/she may question every issue addressed in the book. When we are overwhelmed with terrible news we frequently resort to denial. Denial is not a state in which we are open to problem solving.
This is not to say we should be completely solution driven because that often leads to misunderstanding the problem. However, a 200 page book cannot effectively address the causes of global warming, all of its effects and the means in which to live with those effects. I think writing that take time to analyze may have less data, but may be more effective in bringing a public to awareness and action. McKibbon needed to incorporate his own advise about slowing down and localizing into his writing style.
I agree with Dee about McKibbon’s dismissal of the actions in the 70’s. The 70’s certainly affected me and I wasn’t even alive yet. My mother became socially active in the 70’s and as a result I grew up eating dinner out of the “Recipes for a Small Planet” cook book and became a vegetarian in the third grade.
Jimmy Carter’s action to put solar panels on the roof of the White House seemed to be a simple, poetic response that could have a real impact if Obama did that today. Instead, the theme of the State of the Union was, “Winning the Future.” It was American exceptionalism to the extreme. This pro-capitalist, competitive attitude will not help as we and the world struggle with global warming.
Stevie also brought up a good point when she wrote, “The most highly desirable, or valued resources always find their way into the hands of the most powerful groups.” We need to change the way we think about ownership, trade and borders, which is only made more difficult when our President preaches American exceptionalism and competition amongst nations.
I appreciated that throughout McKibbon’s book, he focused on how global warming is affecting the world’s poorest. It is very upsetting to me that we will watch as the impoverished of the world receive the wrath, which if the world were just, would be inflicted on the richest. I am inclined to believe that this ancient planet will survive. And in some ways, this is comforting. But comfort for a person of privilege like me is not nearly as important as social justice. -EmilyBelknap
McKibben shoots for a select audience here in his book Eaarth. Reading through the first part can be very disheartening, however, he does do a very good job of stacking evidence for his claims. By using this shock and awe type of approach to stating his position and trying to persuade others, he tends to alienate some readers, myself included. I already know that the world is in ecological trouble. By stating his claims in this way, I tended to gloss over parts of the book. It was hard for me to focus on as well. Using scenarios and gloomy stories made the arguments seem far from my life. In light of all of this, the quirky humor did help me get through some of first part.
ReplyDeleteWhen offering suggestions on how to fix all these problems, McKibben takes a pretty elitist stance, which was pretty much the norm through the book. I do agree with decentralization, but more so in a personal choice sort of way. He tends to talk down big government, but it seems like the only way everyone would follow his suggestions would be if the government made them do it. His solutions are tailored to a certain set of the population that is affluent enough, rich enough, and privileged enough to be able to take him seriously. McKibben’s book is targeted for Americans, but I cannot ignore that he offers little serious help to the vast majority of people on earth.
Outside of the US, many countries long to be something close to what America has become (for better or worse). Many people worldwide suffer from starvation, brutal governments, lack of freedoms, lack of clean drinking water, insufficient healthcare, living in harsh environments, and the list goes on and on. Think about telling these people they should only aspire to practice small scale agriculture, compost, and only use what they need.
Tell them that we have affluence, new cars, clean drinking water, internet, iPods, fast food, the ability to travel worldwide in an hour’s notice, comfy homes, big screen TVs, cable, a future for our children, and a warm place to sleep at night. Then tell them that they don’t want this. We’ve had it and, oh, just trust us, it’s no good. McKibben’s arguments do not stand up on a global scale. In my opinion, the global scale is of great importance since developing countries begin to contribute more and more to resource depletion and pollution.
I feel like McKibben does realize my points, but still chooses to talk to only to the audience that is already listening. Targeting such a select audience with such a book doesn’t really produce any good for the movement, only results in estranging environmentalists further from the reality of the general public. This bridge needs to be stronger between the two groups, not getting increasingly polarized.
Cory
I really liked McKibben's book, but like many of you felt that there was something lacking. It is true that it was meant for people like us, who probably already realize the impacts of global warming, but I felt that I was inspired by the book. There was definitely a disconnect between the catastrophic effects of global warming he was using as examples and his idea of getting smaller in order to fix things. Yet his point was not that we were going to stop global warming by getting smaller. The whole idea is that we do not live on the Earth that we were born into, and the technology and the political will do not exist to change it back. We are living on a new eaarth and by changing the way we do business, we can possibly survive as a species and even a society.
ReplyDeleteOne of the points that hit home for me was his talk about our ever-expanding economy and that it is only considered to be good if we are growing. How can there be infinite growth when we live on a finite planet? I don’t know how this can be changed when the whole world economy works by this fact, but it seems crucial. As an ecology major I often forget to look at the whole picture as to why things are happening. We tend to focus on the scientific aspects of things to fix them and not the social and political. In the globalized world of today we need to look at all factors contributing to an effect in order to find the root cause.
The previous comment was posted by Mallory Berrey
ReplyDelete