America's Apathy

We all know that global warming is a big problem. Right? And big problems usually necessitate action, correct? Indeed, Jeffrey Sachs spends a significant amount of energy seeking to convince us - policy makers, leaders, students, grandmothers - to do something. Or at least he insists that something should be done, and suggests a number of workable solutions. On page 97, he writes:

"To manage the carbon budget, we don't need to change everything about our society, but we do need to face head-on six important activities:

• We must slow or stop deforestation
• We must reduce emissions from electricity production
• We must reduce emissions from automobiles
• We must clean up industrial processes in a few major sectors (especially steel, cement, refineries, and petrochemicals).
• We must economize on electricity use through more efficient motors, appliances, lighting, insulation, and other electrical demands.
• We must convert point-source emissions in buildings (such as furnaces) into electricity-based systems powered by low-emission electricity"

Notice the imperative tone in all of these statements: we must. Who are we? Americans? You? Me?

I bookmarked two very different articles about climate change (at delicious.com/alaskagrown34). Both authors are aware of the threat our planet faces, and both would encourage us as citizens of the United States and of the world to do something. But while Jeff Goodell's Slate article seems full of optimistic promise in the face of developing geoengineering technology, Karlyn Bowman reports in Forbes that Americans are devastatingly apathetic about climate change. So who's telling the right story? Could they both be correct?

Goodell does note a certain skepticism in the press regarding geoengineering - "which the British Royal Society defines as "the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system, in order to moderate global warming"" - when he references speculative ideas about geoengineering as a new profit scheme, etc., but in general his article is quite positive. After reading it, one feels reassured that someone is doing something about climate change; that it's being discussed, policies are changing, and help is on the way. Indeed, the internet is thick with encouraging articles, blogs, and videos about developing green technologies (solar panels, biodegradable detergents, hybrid vehicles, you name it), and the general attitude seems optimistic. But are we all just reading the New York Times for columns about the latest green technology as a palliative? Oh, good, someone is doing something about this crisis, so I can continue going about my life. Sure, I'll recycle my plastic yogurt containers, but I'm too busy to do more. It's someone else's job.

This is what Bowman's depressing report about American apathy in the face of global warming seems to suggest. Listen to this: "The issue [of global warming] ranked dead last--20th of 20 issues--when the Pew Research Center asked respondents to list top priorities for President Obama and Congress." What's going on here? How can the media be plastered with "fight global warming" propaganda, which most of us probably claim to support, with no results? Further on in Bowman's article: "As a back-handed compliment to our system of representative democracy, we are content to let competing interest groups, political parties and others debate the next policy steps, reasonably confident that good policy will result from the clash of interests." We're all convinced that someone else is working to solve the problem. It's my senator's problem. Obama's problem. The UN's problem. So our nation is characterized not by a galvanized sense of duty to the environment, but by...apathy.